Will AI replace Charitable organisation managers and directors?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 51 official task statements scored for Charitable organisation managers and directors (United Kingdom, SOC 1135), 32% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 44 out of 100 (range 38–50, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Charitable organisation managers and directors” stay human?

About 42% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Represent organisations at official functions to promote their objectives” (0/100, minimal); “Give presentations to schools and community groups” (7/100, minimal); “Represent the charity at meetings for stakeholder engagement” (9/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Charitable organisation managers and directors” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 32% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 42% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Charitable organisation managers and directors calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 51 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Charitable organisation managers and directors

establishing and maintaining strong collaborative relationships with customers, analysing operations to identify areas for cost reduction and reviewing reports submitted by staff members to recommend approval or to suggest changes. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: preparing reports on business activities. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 32%
changing shape: 27%
staying human: 42%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 44 out of 100 (38–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 51 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for charitable organisation managers and directors is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, representing organisations at official functions to promote their objectives, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.

Your week, as this page understands it

Charitable organisation managers and directors plan, organise, co-ordinate and direct the activities of organisations in the charitable and not-for-profit sector. The job title says “charitable organisation managers” or “directors”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: representing organisations at official functions to promote their objectives. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But charitable organisation managers and directors is not one task. It is 51 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is representing organisations at official functions to promote their objectives, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 32%
changing shape: 27%
staying human: 42%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

24 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
ASHE suppresses or does not publish a median for this unit group. We leave it empty rather than interpolating one from sibling groups, which would be a fabricated number.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

16 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Administering budgets for programmes, equipment and supporting services
This is reading one thing and writing another: budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Administer budgets for programmes, equipment, and support services.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Budget administration is desk work with numbers already in the charity's systems, so software handles most of the routine load.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Formulating a corrective action plan for organisational or project issues
This is reading one thing and writing another: a corrective action plan in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Formulate a corrective action plan for organisational or project issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 68 out of 100 (61–75 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can draft a sensible plan to put things right, but the details that matter come from local knowledge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing budgets for approval, including those for funding or implementation of programmes
This is reading one thing and writing another: budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Prepare budgets for approval, including those for funding or implementation of programmes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Budgets are built from figures already in the system and then go to the board, so software produces a strong first draft.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating the development of budgetary control systems
This is reading one thing and writing another: the development of budgetary control systems in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Coordinate the development of budgetary control systems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Budgetary control systems are built from documented finance practice, with the manager aligning them to the charity's needs.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

14 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Writing funding bids to secure financial support
The software now makes the first pass at bids, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Write funding bids to secure financial support.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: AI produces a solid first draft, though a bid that wins needs tailoring to the funder by someone who knows them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Approving agreements with organisational entities for collaboration
The software now makes the first pass at agreements, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Approve agreements with organisational entities for collaboration.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Collaboration agreements can be drafted and checked by software, but approving them is the charity manager's own accountable decision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Ensuring that bylaws
The software now makes the first pass at bylaws, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Ensure that bylaws are enforced.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: A charity's own rules are written down, so checking them suits software, though acting on breaches stays a judgement call for the manager.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

21 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Establishing and maintaining strong collaborative relationships with customers
The value here is that a specific person handles strong collaborative relationships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 1135/00
Source: “Establish and maintain strong collaborative relationships with customers, suppliers, and stakeholders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Long-term working relationships with customers and suppliers are the whole point of this task.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assigning or delegating responsibilities to department heads or managers
The value here is that a specific person handles responsibilities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Assign or delegate responsibilities to department heads or managers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can suggest how to share out the work, but the decision and the conversation rest on knowing the people involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Managing communication and collaboration with the board of directors
The value here is that a specific person handles communication and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Manage communication and collaboration with the board of directors.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Board relationships run on trust built in person, though the papers and updates behind them can be drafted automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 41 tasks

Preparing reports on business activities
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Prepare reports on business activities, expenses, and budgets.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (86–100 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Activity and budget reports are built from figures already in the system, which software assembles to a good standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing policies to guide organisational operations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Develop policies to guide organisational operations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Policy drafting draws on abundant published examples AI can adapt to the organisation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Analysing operations to identify areas for cost reduction
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: operations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Analyse operations to identify areas for cost reduction.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Finding where costs could come down is number work over data the business already holds, which software does quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing the company's financial performance
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the company's financial performance in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Analyse the company's financial performance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Analysing company results is standard number work on information the business already holds digitally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing proposed legislation to determine its impact on agency services
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: proposed legislation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 1135/00
Source: “Analyse proposed legislation to determine its impact on agency services.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Draft laws are public, and working out what they would mean for services is exactly the reading software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing and analysing new, proposed or revised laws to interpret their meaning
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: new, proposed or revised laws in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Review and analyse new, proposed, or revised laws to interpret their meaning.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Legislation is fully published, so software can read new law and explain it; the manager decides what it means for the charity.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reviewing and updating company policies to ensure compliance with current laws and regulations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: company policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 1135/00
Source: “Review and update company policies to ensure compliance with current laws and regulations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Company policies and the law behind them are published, so software drafts the updates for the manager to adopt.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Interpreting regulatory rules or rule changes
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: regulatory rules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Interpret regulatory rules or rule changes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Rules and rule changes are published in full, so software can explain what they mean; the manager decides what to do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and implementing planning policies
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Develop and implement planning policies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Planning policies are drafted well by software from published practice, then shaped by the charity's own priorities and people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing reports submitted by staff members to recommend approval or to suggest changes
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Review reports submitted by staff members to recommend approval or to suggest changes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading staff reports and suggesting changes is document work software does well, though the feedback still goes to a colleague.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating the implementation of record-keeping systems for executive and managerial roles
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the implementation of record-keeping systems in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Coordinate the implementation of record-keeping systems for executive and managerial roles.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Record-keeping systems follow standard patterns, so software can set them out and largely run them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Implementing marketing campaigns
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: campaigns in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 1135/00
Source: “Implement marketing campaigns.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Campaign material and scheduling are areas where software already produces usable work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Approving promotional campaigns
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at promotional campaigns, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Approve promotional campaigns.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Campaign approval rests on the charity's own judgement about tone and risk, though software can check the rules and the drafts.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying opportunities to enhance income growth
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at opportunities, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Identify opportunities to enhance income growth.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Funding sources and figures are well documented, but judging which opportunities suit this charity needs inside knowledge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing studies on issues affecting areas of responsibility
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at studies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Oversee studies on issues affecting areas of responsibility.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 57 out of 100 (50–64 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Much of a study can be researched and written automatically, though choosing what to look at needs local judgement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Recommending changes to support the interests of the general population or special groups
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at changes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 1135/00
Source: “Recommend changes to support the interests of the general population or special groups.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 57 out of 100 (50–64 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Recommendations can be drafted from published evidence, though the local politics behind them needs a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Referring major policy matters to elected representatives for final decisions
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at major policy matters, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 1135/00
Source: “Refer major policy matters to elected representatives for final decisions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Preparing and passing on policy matters is document work, though the referral itself is a conversation with the people who decide.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing financial planning and budget allocation to achieve organisational goals
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at financial planning and budget allocation, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Oversee financial planning and budget allocation to achieve organisational goals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Financial oversight uses figures software can analyse, but allocating the charity's money is the manager's accountable decision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating the implementation of administrative control processes
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at the implementation of administrative control processes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Coordinate the implementation of administrative control processes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: The paperwork behind control processes can be drafted automatically, but getting them used needs someone to push it through.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing human resources activities and approving HR plans
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at human resources activities, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Oversee human resources activities and approve HR plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: HR oversight and plan approval use documented processes, but the approval is the manager's own accountable decision about people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing advertising departments in businesses
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at departments, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 1135/00
Source: “Direct advertising departments in businesses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Advertising work can be drafted automatically, though running the department means managing people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing purchasing activities of materials and equipment
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at activities of materials, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 1135/00
Source: “Direct purchasing activities of materials and equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Buying runs on documented processes software supports well, though directing the buyers day to day needs a manager.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Leading credit departments to ensure effective credit management
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at credit departments, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 1135/00
Source: “Lead credit departments to ensure effective credit management.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Credit policy and reporting are well-documented desk work; leading the department and its people is where the manager is needed.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conferring with management to discuss and resolve participant complaints
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles management and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Confer with management to discuss and resolve participant complaints.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Talking a complaint through with managers and reaching agreement depends on people in the room, not written analysis.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Negotiating contracts with customers and suppliers for charitable initiatives
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles contracts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Negotiate contracts with customers and suppliers for charitable initiatives.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Contract wording drafts well, but agreeing terms is a negotiation between people with money at stake.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating activities between departments and sites to ensure organisational coherence and efficiency
staying human
The ratings behind this row put activities well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Coordinate activities between departments and sites to ensure organisational coherence and efficiency.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can track and schedule work across sites, but pulling separate departments into line still needs a person with authority.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting detailed information about specific services offered by a charity to potential beneficiaries
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles detailed information and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Present detailed information about specific services offered by a charity to potential beneficiaries.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Materials can be produced quickly, but explaining services to people who may need them works best in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Facilitating good communication between the board
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles good communication and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Facilitate good communication between the board, committees, senior management, non-executive directors, and shareholders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Keeping the board, directors and shareholders talking well together depends on personal standing that software cannot supply.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing activities of accounting or operations departments
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles activities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Direct activities of accounting or operations departments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing accounting and operations teams means leading the specific people who do the work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Securing agreements with donors and partners
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles agreements and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Secure agreements with donors and partners.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Donors give because they trust the people asking, and that relationship is built face to face over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Meeting regularly with the senior management team and trustees
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles the senior management team and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Meeting regularly with the senior management team and trustees.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Papers and minutes can be prepared automatically, but the meeting itself is about people making decisions together.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Serving on committees to influence organisational strategy and decision-making
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles committees and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Serve on committees to influence organisational strategy and decision-making.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Committee influence comes from a person in the room with standing and relationships, not from a document.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Investigating activities of institutions to enforce laws and regulations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: activities of institutions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 1135/00
Source: “Investigate activities of institutions to enforce laws and regulations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Investigating an institution means visiting, gathering evidence and questioning people, so software mainly helps with the analysis.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Organising and monitoring building renovation and conservation work
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: renovation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 1135/00
Source: “Organise and monitor building, renovation and conservation work.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Building and conservation work is watched on site, so software helps with programmes and records rather than the oversight itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting public presentations to raise awareness about the charity's mission and activities
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: public presentations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Conduct public presentations to raise awareness about the charity's mission and activities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (7–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Speaking publicly for a charity depends on a person standing in front of an audience.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Attending community meetings to understand community issues
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: community meetings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Attend community meetings to understand community issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Understanding what a community is worried about comes from being at the meeting and listening.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Serving on boards of directors
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for boards of directors, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Serve on boards of directors, management committees, and governing boards.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A trustee or board seat is held by a named person who is legally accountable for the decisions, so it cannot be handed over.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Selling specific financial products to meet sales targets
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for specific financial products, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 60 · 1135/00
Source: “Sell specific financial products to meet sales targets.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Selling regulated financial products depends on live trust with the buyer and on staff meeting the financial regulator's competence rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Representing the charity at meetings for stakeholder engagement
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the charity, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 1135/00
Source: “Represent the charity at meetings for stakeholder engagement.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Representing a charity means a person in the room whom stakeholders recognise and trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Giving presentations to schools and community groups
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: presentations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 1135/00
Source: “Give presentations to schools and community groups.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Presenting to a school or community group means standing in front of them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Representing organisations at official functions to promote their objectives
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: organisations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 1135/00
Source: “Represent organisations at official functions to promote their objectives.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Turning up in person to represent the organisation is something only a person can do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: No median pay figure is published for this exact group, so there is none here. We would rather show you the gap than a number borrowed from somewhere else.The ONS doesn't publish a reliable pay figure for this exact job (too few people in its survey sample), so none is shown here.
People doing this job: 48,600in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: a corrective action plan in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing reports on business activities and administering budgets for programmes, equipment and supporting services. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where organisations get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Preparing reports on business activities is going; representing organisations at official functions to promote their objectives is not.

So, given all that: 32% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 27% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 42% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 51 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.

This week: one thing

Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.

What you end up holding: your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
How long it takes: about twenty minutes

If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (representing organisations at official functions to promote their objectives) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.

Over the next 12 months

Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles representing organisations at official functions to promote their objectives, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to charitable organisation managers and directors (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was chief executives and senior officials. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. Your own job splits about 32/68: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “establish and maintain strong collaborative relationships with customers, suppliers, and stakeholders”, and let the exposed end go.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Chief executives and senior officials
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “represent organisations at official functions to promote their objectives”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 38% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Production managers and directors in mining and energy
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “represent organisations at official functions to promote their objectives”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 19% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 19% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Health care practice managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already serve on boards of directors, management committees, and governing boards, and their equivalent is to attend board meetings to maintain communication between governing boards, medical staff, and department…. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 32% of its task weight, across 51 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

If you run a team doing this job

If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are preparing reports on business activities, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Entertainment and Recreation Managers, Except Gambling is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In US official statistics this job is counted as Entertainment and Recreation Managers, Except Gambling, Personal Service Managers, All Other and Managers, All Other. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Two honest options, and no deadline on either

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

A nearby route

There's no Space built for charitable organisation managers and directors yet.

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

The closest match is The AI Authority, a community for non-technical managers and domain experts turning one-off AI prompts into workflows a team can trust. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: briefing, checking and delegating AI-assisted work so it is repeatable rather than one person’s trick, and setting the rules that keep a team’s AI output consistent. It covers no fundraising strategy and nothing about Charity Commission rules. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for charitable organisation managers and directors launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Charitable organisation managers and directors?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 51 official task statements scored for Charitable organisation managers and directors (United Kingdom, SOC 1135), 32% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 44 out of 100 (range 38–50, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Charitable organisation managers and directors” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare reports on business activities, expenses, and budgets” (93/100, very high); “Develop policies to guide organisational operations” (83/100, very high); “Administer budgets for programmes, equipment, and support services” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Charitable organisation managers and directors” stay human?: About 42% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Represent organisations at official functions to promote their objectives” (0/100, minimal); “Give presentations to schools and community groups” (7/100, minimal); “Represent the charity at meetings for stakeholder engagement” (9/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Charitable organisation managers and directors” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 32% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 42% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Charitable organisation managers and directors calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 51 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

The ONS doesn't publish a reliable pay figure for this exact job (too few people in its survey sample), so none is shown here.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
24 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
ASHE suppresses or does not publish a median for this unit group. We leave it empty rather than interpolating one from sibling groups, which would be a fabricated number.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: no pay figure published for this groupnomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.