US dataswitch to UK
First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives
supervising and coordinating the investigation of criminal cases, informing personnel of changes in regulations and policies and training staff in proper police work procedures. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: preparing work schedules and assigning duties to subordinates. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, directing collection, preparation and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Directly supervise and coordinate activities of members of police force. The job title says “first-line supervisors of police” or “detectives”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: directing collection, preparation and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners. 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 police and detectives is not one task. It is 20 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is directing collection, preparation and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 28%
- changing shape
- 5%
- staying human
- 67%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 35 out of 100 (30–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 20 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 police and detectives is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 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
6 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.
Informing personnel of changes in regulations and policies
This is reading one thing and writing another: personnel of changes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inform personnel of changes in regulations and policies, implications of new or amended laws, and new techniques of police work.” (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: Summarizing new laws and policies into briefings for officers is well within what current tools produce.
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.
Preparing work schedules and assigning duties to subordinates
This is reading one thing and writing another: work schedules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare work schedules and assign duties to subordinates.” (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 rosters and assigning duties around leave and cover is scheduling work software does well.
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.
Maintaining logs, prepare reports and directing the preparation, handling and maintenance of departmental records
This is reading one thing and writing another: logs, prepare reports and directing the preparation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain logs, prepare reports, and direct the preparation, handling, and maintenance of departmental records.” (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: Logs, reports and departmental records are routine documentation that records systems already generate.
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.
Developing, implementing and revising departmental policies and procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: departmental policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Develop, implement, and revise departmental policies and procedures.” (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: Departmental policies follow widely published models, so drafting and revising them is largely writing work.
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.
Preparing news releases and responding to police correspondence
This is reading one thing and writing another: news releases in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare news releases and respond to police correspondence.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 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: Press releases and standard correspondence follow well-known formats that current tools write to a professional standard.
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 4/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks 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.
Reviewing contents of written orders to ensure adherence to legal requirements
The software now makes the first pass at contents of written orders, 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 · CoreSource: “Review contents of written orders to ensure adherence to legal requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking written orders against legal requirements is document comparison software does well, with an officer accountable.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
13 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.
Explaining police operations to subordinates to assist them in performing their job duties
The value here is that a specific person handles police operations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Explain police operations to subordinates to assist them in performing their job duties.” (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: Written explanations of procedure are easy to produce, but officers take direction from a supervisor they know.
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.
Supervising and coordinating the investigation of criminal cases
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the investigation of criminal cases, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise and coordinate the investigation of criminal cases, offering guidance and expertise to investigators, and ensuring that procedures are conducted in accordance with laws and regulations.” (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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Case tools help, but directing an investigation lawfully requires a sworn supervisor, and much of the judgment is unwritten.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing collection, preparation and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners
This work happens in the physical world: this work, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct collection, preparation, and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners.” (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: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Evidence and prisoner property must be physically handled by an accountable officer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Training staff in proper police work procedures
This work happens in the physical world: staff, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train staff in proper police work procedures.” (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: 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: Training notes can be drafted, but police procedure is taught and practiced in 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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 10 tasks
Preparing budgets and managing expenditures of department funds
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare budgets and manage expenditures of department funds.” (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: Building a departmental budget and tracking spend is spreadsheet 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Requisitioning and issuing equipment and supplies
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Requisition and issue equipment and supplies.” (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: Ordering supplies is routine, but issuing kit means handing it over in the store.
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.
Monitoring and evaluating the job performance of subordinates
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles the job performance of subordinates and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor and evaluate the job performance of subordinates, and authorize promotions and transfers.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Performance data can be summarized, but judging an officer for promotion rests on knowing how they work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating and resolving personnel problems within organization and charges of misconduct against staff
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles personnel problems within organization and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Investigate and resolve personnel problems within organization and charges of misconduct against staff.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Misconduct investigations turn on interviews and judgments about people, which need a supervisor doing them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Meeting with civic, educational and community groups to develop community programs and events and to discuss law enforcement subjects
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: civic, educational and community groups, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Meet with civic, educational, and community groups to develop community programs and events, and to discuss law enforcement subjects.” (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: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Community programs are built on relationships with local groups, formed in meetings people attend.
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.
Disciplining staff for violation of department rules and regulations
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Discipline staff for violation of department rules and regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (8–16 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: Disciplining an officer is a face-to-face act that depends on the supervisor standing with the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing release or transfer of prisoners
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: release, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Direct release or transfer of prisoners.” (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: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Releasing or transferring a prisoner is a custody act carried out by accountable officers in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Cooperating with court personnel and officials from other law enforcement agencies and testify in court
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: court personnel, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Cooperate with court personnel and officials from other law enforcement agencies and testify in court, as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Testifying is legally an act of the officer in person, in the courtroom.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting raids and ordering detention of witnesses and suspects for questioning
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: raids, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct raids and order detention of witnesses and suspects for questioning.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Carrying out a raid and detaining people is physical action reserved by law to sworn officers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Inspecting facilities, supplies, vehicles and equipment to ensure conformance to standards
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: facilities, supplies, vehicles and equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect facilities, supplies, vehicles, and equipment to ensure conformance to standards.” (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: Checking vehicles, equipment and facilities means physically looking them over.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $106,040a 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
- 154,610in 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: work schedules in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing work schedules and assigning duties to subordinates and informing personnel of changes in regulations and policies. What it cannot do is be answerable: collection, preparation and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Preparing work schedules and assigning duties to subordinates is going; directing collection, preparation and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners is not.
So, given all that: 28% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 5% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 67% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 20 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 (directing collection, preparation and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners) 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 directing collection, preparation and handling of evidence and personal property of prisoners, 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 first-line supervisors of police and detectives (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was first-line supervisors of housekeeping and janitorial workers: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 53.7% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 35/100 here, with only 28% of the task list in the top band, and “explain police operations to subordinates to assist them in performing their job…” 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.
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already requisition and issue equipment and supplies, and their equivalent is to issue supplies and equipment to workers. Across both published task lists that is about 11% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $49,100 against your $106,040, 53.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already requisition and issue equipment and supplies, and their equivalent is to order supplies or equipment and issue them to personnel. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% 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: 96% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (76/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $50,340 against your $106,040, 52.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Recreation Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already discipline staff for violation of department rules and regulations, and their equivalent is to enforce rules and regulations of recreational facilities to maintain discipline and ensure safety. 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. It is a pay cut, in those words: $36,560 against your $106,040, 65.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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: 28% of its task weight, across 20 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
If you run a team doing this job
If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are preparing work schedules and assigning duties to subordinates, 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 Police officers (sergeant and below) 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 Police officers (sergeant and below). 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 first-line supervisors of police / detectives, 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 28% 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 first-line supervisors of police / detectives. 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 police / detectives 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 First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 20 official task statements scored for First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives (United States, SOC 33-1012), 28% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 35 out of 100 (range 30–40, 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 Police and Detectives” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare news releases and respond to police correspondence” (88/100, very high); “Maintain logs, prepare reports, and direct the preparation, handling, and maintenance of departmental records” (81/100, very high); “Prepare work schedules and assign duties to subordinates” (79/100, 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 Police and Detectives” stay human?
- About 67% 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: “Inspect facilities, supplies, vehicles, and equipment to ensure conformance to standards” (0/100, minimal); “Conduct raids and order detention of witnesses and suspects for questioning” (0/100, minimal); “Cooperate with court personnel and officials from other law enforcement agencies and testify in court, as necessary” (3/100, 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 Police and Detectives” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 28% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 67% 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 Police and Detectives 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 20 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 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.