US dataswitch to UK
Directors, Religious Activities and Education
developing or directing study courses or religious education programs within congregations, training and supervising religious education instructional staff and implementing program plans by ordering needed materials. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
This job is splitting in two: publicizing programs through sources, such as newsletters, bulletins or mailings is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and identifying and recruiting potential volunteer workers is work it can't touch.
Which half fills your week decides your exposure. Moving toward the second half is a real, doable plan.
Your week, as this page understands it
Coordinate or design programs and conduct outreach to promote the religious education or activities of a denominational group. May provide counseling, guidance, and leadership relative to marital, health, financial, and religious problems. The job title says “directors”, “religious activities” or “education”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: identifying and recruiting potential volunteer workers. 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 directors, religious activities and education is not one task. It is 19 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is identifying and recruiting potential volunteer workers, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 45%
- changing shape
- 11%
- staying human
- 44%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 43 out of 100 (38–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 19 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 directors, religious activities and education is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
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.
- 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
8 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.
Implementing program plans by ordering needed materials
This is reading one thing and writing another: program plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Implement program plans by ordering needed materials, scheduling speakers, reserving space, or handling other administrative details.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Ordering materials, booking speakers and reserving space is routine administration.
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.
Developing or directing study courses or religious education programs within congregations
This is reading one thing and writing another: study courses in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop or direct study courses or religious education programs within congregations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Course outlines and program plans draft well from published curricula and the congregation's own aims.
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.
Scheduling special events, such as camps, conferences, meetings, seminars or retreats
This is reading one thing and writing another: special events in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Schedule special events, such as camps, conferences, meetings, seminars, or retreats.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Scheduling events and coordinating dates is administrative work software handles 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.
Selecting appropriate curricula or class structures for educational programs
This is reading one thing and writing another: appropriate curricula in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Select appropriate curricula or class structures for educational programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing published curricula against a program's aims is desk research that drafts well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
2 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.
Collaborating with other ministry members to establish goals and objectives for religious education programs or to develop ways to encourage program participation
The software now makes the first pass at other ministry 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 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with other ministry members to establish goals and objectives for religious education programs or to develop ways to encourage program participation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Goals get agreed in discussion with colleagues, though the written plan itself drafts easily.
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 3/4.
Locating and distributing resources, such as periodicals or curricula, to enhance the effectiveness of educational programs
The software now makes the first pass at resources, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Locate and distribute resources, such as periodicals or curricula, to enhance the effectiveness of educational programs.” (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: Finding suitable curricula and periodicals is search and comparison work; distributing them is simpler still.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
9 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.
Identifying and recruiting potential volunteer workers
The value here is that a specific person handles potential volunteer workers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Identify and recruit potential volunteer workers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 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: Persuading someone to volunteer depends on a personal relationship and a direct ask.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Counseling individuals regarding interpersonal, health, financial or religious problems
The value here is that a specific person handles individuals regarding interpersonal, health, financial or religious problems and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Counsel individuals regarding interpersonal, health, financial, or religious problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Counselling someone through a personal or spiritual difficulty is a relationship, not a document.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Training and supervising religious education instructional staff
The value here is that a specific person handles religious education instructional staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train and supervise religious education instructional staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 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: Training and supervising teachers depends on watching them and building their confidence.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Attending workshops, seminars or conferences to obtain program ideas, information or resources
This work happens in the physical world: workshops, seminars or conferences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend workshops, seminars, or conferences to obtain program ideas, information, or resources.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 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: The ideas can be summarised from materials, but attending means travelling and being 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 9 tasks
Publicizing programs through sources, such as newsletters, bulletins or mailings
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: programs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Publicize programs through sources, such as newsletters, bulletins, or mailings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing newsletters, bulletins and mailings is drafting work these tools do very quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Analyzing member participation or changes in congregational emphasis to determine needs for religious education
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: member participation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze member participation or changes in congregational emphasis to determine needs for religious education.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Looking at attendance and participation figures to spot needs is standard analysis of records already kept.
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.
Analyzing revenue and programing cost data to determine budget priorities
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: revenue in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze revenue and program cost data to determine budget priorities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Comparing income against program costs to set priorities is spreadsheet work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning fundraising activities for the church
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Plan fundraising activities for the church.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Fundraising plans draft well from documented approaches, though asking people for money stays personal.
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.
Interpreting religious education activities to the public through speaking
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles religious education activities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Interpret religious education activities to the public through speaking, leading discussions, or writing articles for local or national publications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Articles draft easily, but speaking to an audience and leading discussion needs a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning or conducting conferences dealing with the interpretation of religious ideas or convictions
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: conferences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Plan or conduct conferences dealing with the interpretation of religious ideas or convictions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 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: Conference programmes can be drafted, though running the event and the discussion is live work.
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 3/4.
Conferring with clergy members, congregational officials or congregational organizations to encourage support of or participation in religious education activities
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles clergy members, congregational officials or congregational organizations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Confer with clergy members, congregational officials, or congregational organizations to encourage support of or participation in religious education activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Winning support from clergy and officials rests on standing in the congregation, not on paperwork.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Participating in denominational activities aimed at goals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: denominational activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Participate in denominational activities aimed at goals, such as promoting interfaith understanding or providing aid to new or small congregations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 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: Denominational work is about showing up and building relationships between congregations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Visiting congregational members' homes or arranging for pastoral visits to provide information or resources regarding religious education programs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: congregational members' homes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Visit congregational members' homes or arrange for pastoral visits to provide information or resources regarding religious education programs.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Home visits are about turning up in person and being known to the family.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $52,100a 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
- 22,160in 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: program plans in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: publicizing programs through sources, such as newsletters, bulletins or mailings and implementing program plans by ordering needed materials. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what potential volunteer workers run on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Publicizing programs through sources, such as newsletters, bulletins or mailings is going; identifying and recruiting potential volunteer workers is not.
So, given all that: 45% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 11% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 44% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 19 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (identifying and recruiting potential volunteer workers) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles identifying and recruiting potential volunteer workers, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, 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 directors, religious activities and education (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was clergy: only about 6% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 45/55: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “identify and recruit potential volunteer workers”, and let the exposed end go.
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.
Clergy
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already train and supervise religious education instructional staff, and their equivalent is to plan or lead religious education programs. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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 identify and recruit potential volunteer workers, and their equivalent is to recruit, interview, and hire or sign up volunteers and staff. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Training and Development Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already attend workshops, seminars, or conferences to obtain program ideas, information, or resources, and their equivalent is to attend meetings or seminars to obtain information for use in training programs or…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 52% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (61/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it.
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: 45% of its task weight, across 19 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
If you run a team doing this job
If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are publicizing programs through sources, such as newsletters, bulletins or mailings, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Clergy 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 Clergy. 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:
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 directors / religious activities / education, 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 45% 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 directors / religious activities / education. 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 directors / religious activities / education 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 Directors, Religious Activities and Education?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 19 official task statements scored for Directors, Religious Activities and Education (United States, SOC 21-2021), 45% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 43 out of 100 (range 38–49, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Directors, Religious Activities and Education” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Publicize programs through sources, such as newsletters, bulletins, or mailings” (83/100, very high); “Select appropriate curricula or class structures for educational programs” (75/100, high); “Analyze member participation or changes in congregational emphasis to determine needs for religious education” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Directors, Religious Activities and Education” stay human?
- About 44% 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: “Visit congregational members' homes or arrange for pastoral visits to provide information or resources regarding religious education programs” (4/100, minimal); “Participate in denominational activities aimed at goals, such as promoting interfaith understanding or providing aid to new or small congregations” (9/100, minimal); “Counsel individuals regarding interpersonal, health, financial, or religious problems” (10/100, 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 “Directors, Religious Activities and Education” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 45% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 44% 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 Directors, Religious Activities and Education 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 19 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.
- 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 2026-08-05.
- 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.