US dataswitch to UK
First-Line Supervisors of Security Workers
investigating disturbances on the premises, assigning security personnel to posts or patrols and recruiting, interviewing and hiring security personnel. 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: assigning security personnel to posts or patrols. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, investigating disturbances on the premises, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Directly supervise and coordinate activities of security workers and security guards. The job title says “first-line supervisors of security workers”. The real job is the part underneath: investigating disturbances on the premises. 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 security workers is not one task. It is 21 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is investigating disturbances on the premises, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 20%
- changing shape
- 15%
- staying human
- 66%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 30 out of 100 (26–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 21 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for first-line supervisors of security workers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. 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
5 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.
Assigning security personnel to posts or patrols
This is reading one thing and writing another: security personnel in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Assign security personnel to posts or patrols.” (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: Assigning officers to posts and patrols is rostering, which scheduling software does 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.
Developing and documenting security procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: security procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop and document security procedures, policies, or standards.” (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: Writing security procedures and standards is document work software drafts to a standard a supervisor can edit.
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.
Logging items
This is reading one thing and writing another: items in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Log items distributed to persons, such as keys and key cards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 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: Logging which keys and cards went to whom is straightforward record keeping already done in software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Ordering materials or supplies, such as keys, uniforms and badges
This is reading one thing and writing another: materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Order materials or supplies, such as keys, uniforms, and badges.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 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: Reordering keys, uniforms and badges is routine purchasing that ordering systems already handle.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
3 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.
Explaining company policies and procedures to staff using oral or written communication
The software now makes the first pass at company policies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Explain company policies and procedures to staff using oral or written communication.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Explaining policies is largely written communication, an area where software produces clear, usable drafts.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing reports documenting observations made while on patrol
The software now makes the first pass at reports documenting observations made, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Write reports documenting observations made while on patrol.” (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: Writing up what was seen on patrol is report writing software drafts to an acceptable standard.
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.
Scheduling training or drills
The software now makes the first pass at drills, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Schedule training or drills for emergencies, such as fires, bombs, and other threats.” (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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Scheduling drills and training sessions is calendar and planning work software handles well.
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
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.
Investigating disturbances on the premises
This work happens in the physical world: disturbances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Investigate disturbances on the premises, such as security alarms, altercations, and suspicious activity.” (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: Going to an alarm, a fight or something suspicious means physically getting there and dealing with it.
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 1/4.
Monitoring the behavior of security employees to ensure adherence to quality standards
This work happens in the physical world: the behavior of security employees, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Monitor the behavior of security employees to ensure adherence to quality standards, deadlines, or procedures.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Some performance data is recorded automatically, but judging how officers behave on shift means seeing them 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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring and authorizing entry of employees
This work happens in the physical world: entry of employees, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Monitor and authorize entry of employees, visitors, or other persons.” (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: Badge systems handle routine access, but staffing the door and judging who to let through is done in person.
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 11 tasks
Writing and presenting department budgets to upper management or other stakeholders
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: department budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Write and present department budgets to upper management or other stakeholders.” (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: Building a departmental budget and writing it up is spreadsheet and document work software drafts strongly.
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.
Monitoring closed-circuit television cameras
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put closed-circuit television cameras well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor closed-circuit television cameras.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Camera monitoring is screen work and software can flag events, but deciding what actually matters still needs an operator.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Recruiting, interviewing and hiring security personnel
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles security personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recruit, interview, and hire security personnel.” (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: Shortlisting and paperwork can be automated, though hiring decisions rest on interviews with real candidates.
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.
Advising employees in handling problems or resolving complaints from customers
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles employees and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Advise employees in handling problems or resolving complaints from customers, tenants, detainees, or other persons.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Guidance can be written down, but staff handling a difficult complaint want a supervisor they can turn to.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Training security personnel on protective procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: security personnel, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train security personnel on protective procedures, first aid, fire safety, and other duties.” (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: Course material is straightforward to produce, but first aid and fire drills are practiced with people in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Calling police or fire departments in cases of emergency
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: police, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Call police or fire departments in cases of emergency, such as fire, bomb threats, and presence of unauthorized persons.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Calling emergency services is easy; recognizing the emergency in the first place means being there.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Apprehending or evicting trespassers, rule violators or other security threats from the premises
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: trespassers, rule violators or other security threats, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Apprehend or evict trespassers, rule violators, or other security threats from the premises.” (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: Removing a trespasser from the premises is a physical act by a person 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 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Inspecting and adjusting security equipment to ensure it is operational or to detect evidence of tampering
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: security equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect and adjust security equipment to ensure it is operational or to detect evidence of tampering.” (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: Inspecting and adjusting security hardware means hands on the equipment.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Patrolling the premises to prevent or detect intrusion
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the premises, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Patrol the premises to prevent or detect intrusion, protect property, or preserve order.” (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: Patrolling is being present on the premises; that presence is the whole point of it.
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.
Screening individuals and belongings to prevent passage of prohibited materials using walkthrough detectors
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: individuals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Screen individuals and belongings to prevent passage of prohibited materials using walkthrough detectors, wands, or bag searches.” (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 bags with wands and detectors needs hands and eyes at the entrance.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Securing entrances and exits by locking doors and gates
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: entrances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Secure entrances and exits by locking doors and gates.” (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: Locking doors and gates is physical work at each entrance.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $55,940a 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
- 81,480in 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: security personnel in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: assigning security personnel to posts or patrols and developing and documenting security procedures. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where disturbances 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: investigating disturbances on the premises is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 20% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 15% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 66% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 21 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Assigning security personnel to posts or patrols 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 security personnel, 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 the behavior of security employees is 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 explaining company policies and procedures to staff using oral or written communication. 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 security workers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was security guards: only about 30% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 32.0% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 30/100 here, with only 20% of the task list in the top band, and “investigate disturbances on the premises” 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.
Security Guards
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already secure entrances and exits by locking doors and gates, and their equivalent is to lock doors and gates of entrances and exits to secure buildings. Across both published task lists that is about 30% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 30% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route. It is a pay cut, in those words: $38,020 against your $55,940, 32.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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 monitor the behavior of security employees to ensure adherence to quality standards, deadlines…, and their equivalent is to supervise the work of office, administrative, or customer service employees to ensure adherence…. Across both published task lists that is about 13% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 13% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Facilities Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already schedule training or drills for emergencies, and their equivalent is to respond to medical emergencies, bomb threats, fire alarms, or intrusion alarms, following emergency…. 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.
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: 20% of its task weight, across 21 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like investigating disturbances on the premises 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 assigning security personnel to posts or patrols, 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 community support officers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Police community support officers and Security guards and related occupations. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for first-line supervisors of security workers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 20% 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 security workers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for first-line supervisors of security workers launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace First-Line Supervisors of Security Workers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for First-Line Supervisors of Security Workers (United States, SOC 33-1091), 20% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 30 out of 100 (range 26–36, 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 Security Workers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Order materials or supplies, such as keys, uniforms, and badges” (93/100, very high); “Assign security personnel to posts or patrols” (75/100, high); “Develop and document security procedures, policies, or standards” (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 “First-Line Supervisors of Security Workers” stay human?
- About 66% 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: “Secure entrances and exits by locking doors and gates” (0/100, minimal); “Screen individuals and belongings to prevent passage of prohibited materials using walkthrough detectors, wands, or bag searches” (0/100, minimal); “Patrol the premises to prevent or detect intrusion, protect property, or preserve order” (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 Security Workers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 20% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 66% 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 Security Workers calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 21 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
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.
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.