Will AI replace Community Health Workers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 28 official task statements scored for Community Health Workers (United States, SOC 21-1094), 9% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 28 out of 100 (range 23–34, 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 “Community Health Workers” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain updated client records with plans, notes, appropriate forms, or related information” (81/100, very high); “Provide feedback to health service providers regarding improving service accessibility or acceptability” (64/100, high); “Refer community members to needed health services” (53/100, 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 “Community Health Workers” stay human?

About 75% 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: “Transport or accompany clients to scheduled health appointments or referral sites” (0/100, minimal); “Provide basic health services, such as first aid” (0/100, minimal); “Perform basic diagnostic procedures, such as blood pressure screening, breast cancer screening, or communicable disease screening” (0/100, 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 “Community Health Workers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 9% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 75% 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 Community Health 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 28 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.

US dataswitch to UK

Community Health Workers

performing basic diagnostic procedures, transporting or accompanying clients to scheduled health appointments or referral sites and contacting clients in person. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: attending community meetings or health fairs to understand community issues or building relationships with community members is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 9%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 75%

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

Whole-job exposure score 28 out of 100 (23–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 28 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 community health 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.

What shifts is maintaining updated client records with plans: the paper around the work, not the work.

Your week, as this page understands it

Promote health within a community by assisting individuals to adopt healthy behaviors. Serve as an advocate for the health needs of individuals by assisting community residents in effectively communicating with healthcare providers or social service agencies. Act as liaison or advocate and implement programs that promote, maintain, and improve individual and overall community health. May deliver health-related preventive services such as blood pressure, glaucoma, and hearing screenings. May collect data to help identify community health needs. The job title says “community health workers”. The real job is the part underneath: attending community meetings or health fairs to understand community issues or building relationships with community members. 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 community health workers is not one task. It is 28 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is attending community meetings or health fairs to understand community issues or building relationships with community members, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 9%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 75%

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 2026-08-04. 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.

2 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 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.

Maintaining updated client records with plans
This is reading one thing and writing another: updated client records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Maintain updated client records with plans, notes, appropriate forms, or related information.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 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: Keeping client notes, plans and forms up to date is structured record-keeping software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Providing feedback to health service providers regarding improving service accessibility or acceptability
This is reading one thing and writing another: feedback in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Provide feedback to health service providers regarding improving service accessibility or acceptability.” (O*NET 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: Writing up feedback for providers on what is not working is a reporting job software supports 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

4 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.

Referring community members to needed health services
The software now makes the first pass at community members, 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 · Core
Source: “Refer community members to needed health services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 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 someone to the right service is directory work, though a referral works better from a trusted 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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying or contacting members of high-risk or otherwise targeted groups
The software now makes the first pass at members of high-risk, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Identify or contact members of high-risk or otherwise targeted groups, such as members of minority populations, low-income populations, or pregnant women.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 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: Finding people in a high-risk group uses records and outreach lists, though local knowledge matters.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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.
Developing plans or formal contracts
The software now makes the first pass at plans, 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 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Develop plans or formal contracts for individuals, families, or community groups to improve overall health.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 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: Drawing up a health improvement plan is structured writing, agreed with the family.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reporting incidences of child or elder abuse
The software now makes the first pass at incidences of child, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Report incidences of child or elder abuse, neglect, or threats of harm to authorities, as required.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (36–44 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: An abuse or neglect report has to be made by the person legally responsible for reporting it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

22 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.

Advising clients or community groups on issues related to improving general health
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Advise clients or community groups on issues related to improving general health, such as diet or exercise.” (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 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: General diet and exercise advice is well documented, but it lands because someone local delivers it in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.
Attending community meetings or health fairs to understand community issues or building relationships with community members
This work happens in the physical world: community meetings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Attend community meetings or health fairs to understand community issues or build relationships with community members.” (O*NET 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 at community meetings and health fairs to build relationships is presence in a place.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Distributing flyers, brochures or other informational or educational documents to inform members of a targeted community
This work happens in the physical world: flyers, brochures or other informational or educational documents, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Distribute flyers, brochures, or other informational or educational documents to inform members of a targeted community.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Handing out leaflets and brochures around a community is physical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Contacting clients in person, by phone or in writing to ensure they have completed required or recommended actions
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Contact clients in person, by phone, or in writing to ensure they have completed required or recommended actions.” (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 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: Following up with clients is partly automated reminders and partly turning up where they are.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.

Show the other 18 tasks

Advocating for individual or community health needs with government agencies or health service providers
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles individual and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Advocate for individual or community health needs with government agencies or health service providers.” (O*NET 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: Advocating with agencies and providers depends on relationships and knowing who to press.
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.
Identifying the particular health care needs of individuals in a community or target area
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the particular health care needs of individuals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Identify the particular health care needs of individuals in a community or target area.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Working out what a community needs mixes local data with time spent in the area.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collecting information from individuals to compile vital statistics about the general health of community members
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: information, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Collect information from individuals to compile vital statistics about the general health of community members.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Collecting health information from residents is partly form work and partly knocking on doors.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring nutrition of children, elderly or other high-risk groups
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: nutrition of children, elderly or other high-risk groups, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Monitor nutrition of children, elderly, or other high-risk groups.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Monitoring nutrition mixes record keeping with seeing people in their homes and schools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Interpreting, translating or providing cultural mediation related to health services or information for community members
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: cultural mediation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Interpret, translate, or provide cultural mediation related to health services or information for community members.” (O*NET 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 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: Translating written health information is something software does very well, but sitting between patient and clinician is in-person work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising clients or community groups on issues related to sanitation or hygiene
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Advise clients or community groups on issues related to sanitation or hygiene, such as flossing or hand washing.” (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 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: Handwashing and flossing advice is simple and well documented, but it is usually given in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.
Assisting families to apply for social services
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: families, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Assist families to apply for social services, including Medicaid or Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).” (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 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: Filling in Medicaid or WIC applications is form work, usually done sitting alongside the family.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.
Advising clients or community groups on issues related to diagnostic screenings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Advise clients or community groups on issues related to diagnostic screenings, such as breast cancer screening, pap smears, glaucoma tests, or diabetes screenings.” (O*NET 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 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: Screening information is well documented, but the conversation usually happens face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising clients or community groups on issues related to self-care
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Advise clients or community groups on issues related to self-care, such as diabetes management.” (O*NET 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 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: Self-care advice such as diabetes management is well documented, but delivery is usually face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising clients or community groups on issues related to social or intellectual development
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Advise clients or community groups on issues related to social or intellectual development, such as education, childcare, or problem solving.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 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: Advice on childcare and problem solving depends on the family’s situation and a relationship with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Teaching classes or otherwise disseminate medical or dental health information to school groups
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: classes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Teach classes or otherwise disseminate medical or dental health information to school groups, community groups, or targeted families or individuals, in a manner consistent with cultural norms.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 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: Teaching a group and adapting to how they react is live work in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Advising clients or community groups to ensure parental understanding of the importance of childhood immunizations and how to access immunization services
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Advise clients or community groups to ensure parental understanding of the importance of childhood immunizations and how to access immunization services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium 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: Persuading a hesitant parent about immunization depends on trust with someone they already know.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Advising clients or community groups on issues related to risk or prevention of conditions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Advise clients or community groups on issues related to risk or prevention of conditions, such as lead poisoning, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), prenatal substance abuse, or domestic violence.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (10–18 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: Talking about HIV risk or domestic violence depends on trust built with that particular person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Administering immunizations or other basic preventive treatments
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: immunizations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Administer immunizations or other basic preventive treatments.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; 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 an immunization is a hands-on clinical act by a qualified person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting home visits for pregnant women
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: home visits, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct home visits for pregnant women, newborn infants, or other high-risk individuals to monitor their progress or assess their needs.” (O*NET 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: A home visit to a new mother or high-risk client is being physically present in their home.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing basic diagnostic procedures, such as blood pressure screening, breast cancer screening or communicable disease screening
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: basic diagnostic procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Supplemental
Source: “Perform basic diagnostic procedures, such as blood pressure screening, breast cancer screening, or communicable disease screening.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; 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: Taking a blood pressure or running a screening test is hands-on clinical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing basic health services, such as first aid
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: basic health services, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Provide basic health services, such as first aid.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; 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 first aid is hands-on.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Transporting or accompanying clients to scheduled health appointments or referral sites
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Transport or accompany clients to scheduled health appointments or referral sites.” (O*NET 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: Taking someone to an appointment means physically travelling with them.
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 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $51,850a 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: 61,660in 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: updated client records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining updated client records with plans and providing feedback to health service providers regarding improving service accessibility or acceptability. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where community meetings 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

Start with what does not change: attending community meetings or health fairs to understand community issues or building relationships with community members 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, 16% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 75% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 28 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 updated client records with plans 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 updated client 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 community meetings 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 community members to needed health services. 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 community health workers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was health education specialists: only about 3% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 28/100 here, with only 9% of the task list in the top band, and “advise clients or community groups on issues related to improving general health” 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.

Health Education Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already refer community members to needed health services, and their equivalent is to collaborate with health specialists and civic groups to determine community health needs and…. 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.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Social and Human Service Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already refer community members to needed health services, and their equivalent is to provide information or refer individuals to public or private agencies or community services…. 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. It is a pay cut, in those words: $45,930 against your $51,850, 11.4% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Social and Community Service Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already refer community members to needed health services, and their equivalent is to establish and maintain relationships with other agencies and organizations in community to meet…. 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.
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: 9% of its task weight, across 28 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 attending community meetings or health fairs to understand community issues or building relationships with community members 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 Health associate professionals n.e.c. 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

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Health associate professionals n.e.c.. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

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:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for community health 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.

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.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for community health 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 community health 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 Space for community health workers yet. Should there be one?

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

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for community health workers existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for community health workers launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

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 Community Health Workers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 28 official task statements scored for Community Health Workers (United States, SOC 21-1094), 9% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 28 out of 100 (range 23–34, 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 “Community Health Workers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain updated client records with plans, notes, appropriate forms, or related information” (81/100, very high); “Provide feedback to health service providers regarding improving service accessibility or acceptability” (64/100, high); “Refer community members to needed health services” (53/100, 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 “Community Health Workers” stay human?: About 75% 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: “Transport or accompany clients to scheduled health appointments or referral sites” (0/100, minimal); “Provide basic health services, such as first aid” (0/100, minimal); “Perform basic diagnostic procedures, such as blood pressure screening, breast cancer screening, or communicable disease screening” (0/100, 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 “Community Health Workers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 9% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 75% 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 Community Health 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 28 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

Worth knowing about these figures

The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
2 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.

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.