Will AI replace First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 23 official task statements scored for First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers (United States, SOC 33-1011), 17% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 21 out of 100 (range 18–27, 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 “First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers” stay human?

About 79% 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: “Transfer or transport offenders on foot or by driving vehicles, such as trailers, vans, or buses” (0/100, minimal); “Resolve problems between inmates” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise or provide security for offenders performing tasks, such as construction, maintenance, laundry, food service, or other industrial or agricultural o…” (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 “First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 17% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 79% 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 First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers 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 23 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

First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers

taking, receiving or checking periodic inmate counts, restraining, securing or controlling offenders and carrying injured offenders or employees to safety and providing emergency first aid. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: completing administrative paperwork or supervising the preparation or maintenance of records. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 17%
changing shape: 4%
staying human: 79%

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

Whole-job exposure score 21 out of 100 (18–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 23 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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

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

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

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, maintaining order, discipline and security within assigned areas in accordance with relevant rules, regulations, policies and laws, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

Directly supervise and coordinate activities of correctional officers and jailers. The job title says “first-line supervisors of correctional officers”. The real job is the part underneath: maintaining order, discipline and security within assigned areas in accordance with relevant rules, regulations, policies and laws. 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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers is not one task. It is 23 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is maintaining order, discipline and security within assigned areas in accordance with relevant rules, regulations, policies and laws, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 17%
changing shape: 4%
staying human: 79%

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

How we know this

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

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

Your job, task by task

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

1 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

4 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.

Completing administrative paperwork or supervising the preparation or maintenance of records
This is reading one thing and writing another: administrative paperwork in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Complete administrative paperwork or supervise the preparation or maintenance of records, forms, or reports.” (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: Forms, logs and reports are written records, and drafting or checking them is what document software does best.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing offender information to identify issues that require special attention
This is reading one thing and writing another: offender information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review offender information to identify issues that require special attention.” (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: Reading offender records to flag concerns is document work, and software is good at spotting patterns in files.
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.
Setting up employee work schedules
This is reading one thing and writing another: employee work schedules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Set up employee work schedules.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 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: Building shift rosters around cover, leave and rules is exactly the kind of scheduling software already handles.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing work or security procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: work in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop work or security procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 68 out of 100 (61–75 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Procedures can be drafted from existing models, though the risks of a particular facility are known mainly to its staff.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Changing shape

1 task

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.

Conducting evaluations of employees' performance
The software now makes the first pass at evaluations of employees' performance, 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: “Conduct evaluations of employees' performance.” (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: AI can draft appraisals from records, though delivering the judgment to the officer is still a conversation.
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.

Staying human

18 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.

Maintaining knowledge of, comply with and enforcing all institutional policies, rules, procedures and regulations
This work happens in the physical world: knowledge, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Maintain knowledge of, comply with, and enforce all institutional policies, rules, procedures, and regulations.” (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: AI can summarize and check rules quickly, but enforcing them on the unit takes an officer on the floor.
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.
Maintaining order, discipline and security within assigned areas in accordance with relevant rules, regulations, policies and laws
This work happens in the physical world: order, discipline and security within assigned areas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Maintain order, discipline, and security within assigned areas in accordance with relevant rules, regulations, policies, and laws.” (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: Keeping order on a wing is done by officers physically present in the housing area.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising and directing the work of correctional officers to ensure the safe custody
This work happens in the physical world: the work of correctional officers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Supervise and direct the work of correctional officers to ensure the safe custody, discipline, and welfare of inmates.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 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: Directing officers through a shift happens face to face, and their confidence in the supervisor matters.
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.
Responding to emergencies, such as escapes
This work happens in the physical world: emergencies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Respond to emergencies, such as escapes.” (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 rating behind it: Responding to an escape or disturbance is a physical emergency response by staff on site.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Taking, receiving or checking periodic inmate counts
This work happens in the physical world: periodic inmate counts, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Take, receive, or check periodic inmate counts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Counting inmates means eyes on people in the unit, though checking the tally afterwards is ordinary record work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 13 tasks

Conveying correctional officers' or inmates' complaints to superiors
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles correctional officers' and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Convey correctional officers' or inmates' complaints to superiors.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: Writing up complaints is straightforward, but hearing them out and judging what matters happens in person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Examining incoming or outgoing mail to ensure conformance with regulations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: mail, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Examine incoming or outgoing mail to ensure conformance with regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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: Reading mail for banned content is text checking software does well, but the envelopes still have to be opened.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Instructing employees or providing on-the-job training
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: employees, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Instruct employees or provide on-the-job training.” (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: AI can prepare training material, though showing officers the job on the wing needs an experienced person there.
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.
Rating behavior of inmates, promoting acceptable attitudes and behaviors to those with low ratings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: behavior of inmates, promoting acceptable attitudes and behaviors, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Rate behavior of inmates, promoting acceptable attitudes and behaviors to those with low ratings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 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: Scoring behavior is record work, but encouraging an inmate to change relies on someone they know and respect.
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 2/4.
Conducting roll calls of correctional officers
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: roll calls of correctional officers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct roll calls of correctional officers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Attendance itself is simple to record, but roll call is a muster where the supervisor sees who is present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring behavior of subordinates to ensure alert
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: behavior of subordinates, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Monitor behavior of subordinates to ensure alert, courteous, and professional behavior toward inmates, parolees, fellow employees, visitors, and the public.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 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: Judging how officers behave toward inmates and visitors requires watching them at work in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Restraining, securing or controlling offenders, using chemical agents, firearms or other weapons of force
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: offenders, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Restrain, secure, or control offenders, using chemical agents, firearms, or other weapons of force as necessary.” (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 rating behind it: Physically restraining someone is direct bodily action that no software performs.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Supervising or performing searches of inmates or their quarters to locate contraband items
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: searches of inmates, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Supervise or perform searches of inmates or their quarters to locate contraband items.” (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 rating behind it: Searching people and cells is hands-on work carried out inside the facility.
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 2/4.
Supervising activities, such as searches, shakedowns, riot control or institutional tours
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Supervise activities, such as searches, shakedowns, riot control, or institutional tours.” (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: Running searches, shakedowns and tours means being present and directing people in the moment.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Carrying injured offenders or employees to safety and providing emergency first aid
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: injured offenders, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Carry injured offenders or employees to safety and provide emergency first aid when necessary.” (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: Carrying an injured person and giving first aid is immediate hands-on help.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising or providing security for offenders performing tasks
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: security, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Supervise or provide security for offenders performing tasks, such as construction, maintenance, laundry, food service, or other industrial or agricultural operations.” (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 rating behind it: Watching over inmates while they work means an officer physically alongside 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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Resolving problems between inmates
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: problems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Resolve problems between inmates.” (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: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Settling disputes between inmates happens face to face on the unit, where presence and authority matter.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Transferring or transporting offenders on foot or by driving vehicles
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: offenders, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Transfer or transport offenders on foot or by driving vehicles, such as trailers, vans, or buses.” (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 rating behind it: Moving prisoners on foot or by vehicle is physical escort work.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $77,970a 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: 53,380in 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: administrative paperwork in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: completing administrative paperwork or supervising the preparation or maintenance of records and reviewing offender information to identify issues that require special attention. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where order, discipline and security within assigned areas 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: maintaining order, discipline and security within assigned areas in accordance with relevant rules, regulations, policies and laws is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 17% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 4% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 79% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 23 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. Completing administrative paperwork or supervising the preparation or maintenance of records 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 administrative paperwork, 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 order, discipline and security within assigned areas 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 conducting evaluations of employees' performance. 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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was correctional officers and jailers: only about 10% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 24.4% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 21/100 here, with only 17% of the task list in the top band, and “maintain knowledge of, comply with, and enforce all institutional policies, rules, procedures…” 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.

Correctional Officers and Jailers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already instruct employees or provide on-the-job training, and their equivalent is to participate in required job training. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $58,940 against your $77,970, 24.4% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already instruct employees or provide on-the-job training, and their equivalent is to train or instruct employees in job duties or company policies or arrange for…. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $69,500 against your $77,970, 10.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Human Resources Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already set up employee work schedules, and their equivalent is to address employee relations issues. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 17% of its task weight, across 23 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 maintaining order, discipline and security within assigned areas in accordance with relevant rules, regulations, policies and laws 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.

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 completing administrative paperwork or supervising the preparation or maintenance of records, 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 Prison service officers (below principal officer) 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:

Senior officers in fire, ambulance, prison and related services

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Prison service officers (below principal officer) and Senior officers in fire, ambulance, prison and related services. 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:
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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers, 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 17% 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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers. 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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers 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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers 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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers 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 first-line supervisors of correctional officers 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 First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 23 official task statements scored for First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers (United States, SOC 33-1011), 17% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 21 out of 100 (range 18–27, 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 “First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Set up employee work schedules” (79/100, high); “Complete administrative paperwork or supervise the preparation or maintenance of records, forms, or reports” (75/100, high); “Develop work or security procedures” (68/100, 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 “First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers” stay human?: About 79% 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: “Transfer or transport offenders on foot or by driving vehicles, such as trailers, vans, or buses” (0/100, minimal); “Resolve problems between inmates” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise or provide security for offenders performing tasks, such as construction, maintenance, laundry, food service, or other industrial or agricultural o…” (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 “First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 17% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 79% 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 First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers 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 23 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.
1 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 2026-08-05.
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.

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.