US dataswitch to UK
Child, Family, and School Social Workers
placing children in foster or adoptive homes, consulting with parents and counseling parents with child rearing problems. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: interviewing clients individually, in families or in groups, assessing their situations, capabilities and problems to determine what services are required to meet their needs is work software can't reach.
What shifts is maintaining case history records and preparing reports. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Provide social services and assistance to improve the social and psychological functioning of children and their families and to maximize the family well-being and the academic functioning of children. May assist parents, arrange adoptions, and find foster homes for abandoned or abused children. In schools, they address such problems as teenage pregnancy, misbehavior, and truancy. May also advise teachers. The job title says “child”, “family” or “school social workers”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: interviewing clients individually, in families or in groups, assessing their situations, capabilities and problems to determine what services are required to meet their needs. 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 child, family, and school social workers is not one task. It is 21 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is interviewing clients individually, in families or in groups, assessing their situations, capabilities and problems to determine what services are required to meet their needs, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 9%
- changing shape
- 20%
- staying human
- 71%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 27 out of 100 (22–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 21 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 child, family, and school social workers 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 2026-08-04. 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.
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- 3 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.
- 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
2 tasksTasks 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.
Maintaining case history records and preparing reports
This is reading one thing and writing another: case history records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Maintain case history records and prepare reports.” (O*NET 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: Case notes and reports are written up from information already gathered, and drafting them is something AI does well.
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.
Conducting social research
This is reading one thing and writing another: social research in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct social research.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 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: Social research is reading, data analysis and writing up, which is where AI tools are strongest.
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.
Changing shape
4 tasksTasks 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.
Referring clients to community resources
The software now makes the first pass at clients, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Refer clients to community resources for services, such as job placement, debt counseling, legal aid, housing, medical treatment, or financial assistance, and provide concrete information, such as where to go and how to apply.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Matching a family to local services and explaining how to apply uses published directories and clear written guidance.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Arranging for medical, psychiatric and other tests that may disclose causes of difficulties and indicate remedial measures
The software now makes the first pass at medical, psychiatric and other tests, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Arrange for medical, psychiatric, and other tests that may disclose causes of difficulties and indicate remedial measures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 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: Booking assessments and tests is scheduling and referral admin that can largely be handled through systems.
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 2/4.
Collecting supplementary information needed to assist client
The software now makes the first pass at supplementary information, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collect supplementary information needed to assist client, such as employment records, medical records, or school reports.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Collecting school, medical and employment records is document gathering that systems can request and organise.
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.
Determining clients' eligibility for financial assistance
The software now makes the first pass at clients' eligibility, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Determine clients' eligibility for financial assistance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Eligibility follows written rules applied to documented income and circumstances, which software already checks.
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.
Staying human
15 tasksTasks 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.
Interviewing clients individually, in families or in groups, assessing their situations, capabilities and problems to determine what services are required to meet their needs
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Interview clients individually, in families, or in groups, assessing their situations, capabilities, and problems to determine what services are required to meet their needs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Assessing what a family needs depends on being with them and reading what is not being said.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing find or arranging for support services, such as child care, homemaker service, prenatal care
The value here is that a specific person handles find and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide, find, or arrange for support services, such as child care, homemaker service, prenatal care, substance abuse treatment, job training, counseling, or parenting classes to prevent more serious problems from developing.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Finding and arranging services is coordination work, though someone local is needed to push things through.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Consulting with parents, teachers and other school personnel to determine causes of problems
The value here is that a specific person handles parents, teachers and other school personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Consult with parents, teachers, and other school personnel to determine causes of problems, such as truancy and misbehavior, and to implement solutions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 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: Working out why a child is missing school takes candid conversations with parents and teachers who know them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing and reviewing service plans in consultation with clients and performing follow-ups assessing the quantity and quality of services
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for service plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop and review service plans in consultation with clients and perform follow-ups assessing the quantity and quality of services provided.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low 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 service plan can be drafted from a template, though agreeing it with the family needs a qualified worker.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 11 tasks
Serving on policy-making committees
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles policy-making committees and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Serve on policy-making committees, assist in community development, and assist client groups by lobbying for solutions to problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 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: Papers and proposals can be drafted, but committee work and campaigning depend on being in the room.
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 2/4.
Counseling students whose behavior, school progress or mental or physical impairment indicate
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for students whose behavior, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Counsel students whose behavior, school progress, or mental or physical impairment indicate a need for assistance, diagnosing students' problems and arranging for needed services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (17–25 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high 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: Standard guidance exists, but a struggling student opens up to someone they already know and trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Serving as liaisons between students
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles liaisons and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Serve as liaisons between students, homes, schools, family services, child guidance clinics, courts, protective services, doctors, and other contacts to help children who face problems, such as disabilities, abuse, or poverty.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 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: Chasing schools, clinics and courts can be organised, but the work runs on trusted relationships with each of them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Counseling parents with child rearing problems
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for parents, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Counsel parents with child rearing problems, interviewing the child and family to determine whether further action is required.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (11–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: Advice on raising children is widely written down, but parents act on it because they trust the worker.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Supervising other social workers
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for other social workers, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Supervise other social workers.” (O*NET 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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising practitioners means taking responsibility for their decisions and supporting them personally through difficult cases.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Recommending temporary foster care and advising foster or adoptive parents
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for temporary foster care, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · SupplementalSource: “Recommend temporary foster care and advise foster or adoptive parents.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: Recommending foster care and guiding carers rests on professional responsibility and a relationship with the family.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Evaluating personal characteristics and home conditions of foster home or adoption applicants
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: personal characteristics, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Evaluate personal characteristics and home conditions of foster home or adoption applicants.” (O*NET 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: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Judging whether a home is right for a child means visiting it and reading the people who live there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Counseling individuals, groups, families or communities regarding issues, mental health, poverty, unemployment, substance abuse, physical abuse, rehabilitation, social adjustment, child care or medical care
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for individuals, groups, families or communities regarding issues, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Counsel individuals, groups, families, or communities regarding issues including mental health, poverty, unemployment, substance abuse, physical abuse, rehabilitation, social adjustment, child care, or medical care.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
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: Counselling on serious personal problems is regulated work that depends on a trusted relationship with the person.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Addressing legal issues, such as child abuse and discipline
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: legal issues, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Address legal issues, such as child abuse and discipline, assisting with hearings and providing testimony to inform custody arrangements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Giving evidence about a child is done in person by an accountable professional the court can question.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Placing children in foster or adoptive homes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: children, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · SupplementalSource: “Place children in foster or adoptive homes, institutions, or medical treatment centers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Placing a child in a home is a legal decision an accountable person makes, and it happens in the real world.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Leading group counseling sessions that provide support in such areas as grief
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: group counseling sessions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Lead group counseling sessions that provide support in such areas as grief, stress, or chemical dependency.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A support group works because people are in the room with someone they trust, and that cannot be handed over.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $59,550a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 392,550in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
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: case history records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining case history records and preparing reports and conducting social research. What it cannot do is be answerable: clients need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. 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
Start with what does not change: interviewing clients individually, in families or in groups, assessing their situations, capabilities and problems to determine what services are required to meet their needs is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 9% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 20% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 71% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 21 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Maintaining case history records and preparing reports is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to case history records, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether clients are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near referring clients to community resources. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, 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 US occupations to child, family, and school social workers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was mental health and substance abuse social workers: only about 10% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 27/100 here, with only 9% of the task list in the top band, and “refer clients to community resources for services” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US 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.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already counsel individuals, groups, families, or communities regarding issues, and their equivalent is to counsel clients in individual or group sessions to assist them in dealing with…. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Healthcare Social Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already refer clients to community resources for services, and their equivalent is to refer patient, client, or family to community resources to assist in recovery from…. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Marriage and Family Therapists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already counsel parents with child rearing problems, interviewing the child and family to determine…, and their equivalent is to counsel clients on concerns. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 66,740 of those jobs against 392,550 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 17% as many seats.
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: 9% of its task weight, across 21 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like interviewing clients individually, in families or in groups, assessing their situations, capabilities and problems to determine what services are required to meet their needs arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
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.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Social workers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Social workers, Youth work professionals, Probation officers and Welfare professionals n.e.c.. 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
Where to go next, and what it costs
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.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for child / family / school social workers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 9% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for child / family / school social workers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for child / family / school social workers 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 Child, Family, and School Social Workers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for Child, Family, and School Social Workers (United States, SOC 21-1021), 9% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 27 out of 100 (range 22–32, band: low). 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 “Child, Family, and School Social Workers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Conduct social research” (75/100, high); “Maintain case history records and prepare reports” (66/100, high); “Collect supplementary information needed to assist client, such as employment records, medical records, or school reports” (56/100, partial). 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 “Child, Family, and School Social Workers” stay human?
- About 71% 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: “Lead group counseling sessions that provide support in such areas as grief, stress, or chemical dependency” (3/100, minimal); “Place children in foster or adoptive homes, institutions, or medical treatment centers” (4/100, minimal); “Address legal issues, such as child abuse and discipline, assisting with hearings and providing testimony to inform custody arrangements” (5/100, 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 “Child, Family, and School Social Workers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 9% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 71% 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 Child, Family, and School Social Workers 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 21 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
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 3 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.
- 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
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
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.
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}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . 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.