Will AI replace Psychiatric Technicians?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 16 official task statements scored for Psychiatric Technicians (United States, SOC 29-2053), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 8 out of 100 (range 4–13, band: minimal). 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 “Psychiatric Technicians” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Contact patients' relatives to arrange family conferences” (46/100, partial); “Develop or teach strategies to promote client wellness and independence” (23/100, low); “Train or instruct new employees on procedures to follow with psychiatric patients” (23/100, low). 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 “Psychiatric Technicians” stay human?

About 97% 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: “Escort patients to medical appointments” (0/100, minimal); “Administer oral medications or hypodermic injections, following physician's prescriptions and hospital procedures” (0/100, minimal); “Aid patients in performing tasks, such as bathing or keeping beds, clothing, or living areas clean” (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 “Psychiatric Technicians” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 97% 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 Psychiatric Technicians 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 16 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

Psychiatric Technicians

providing nursing, issuing medications from dispensary and maintaining records in accordance with specified procedures and monitoring patients' physical and emotional well-being and reporting unusual behavior or physical ailments to medical staff. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: encouraging patients to develop work skills and to participate in social is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 0%
changing shape: 3%
staying human: 97%

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

Whole-job exposure score 8 out of 100 (4–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 16 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 psychiatric technicians is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

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

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

What shifts is contacting patients' relatives to arrange family conferences: the paper around the work, not the work.

Your week, as this page understands it

Care for individuals with mental or emotional conditions or disabilities, following the instructions of physicians or other health practitioners. Monitor patients' physical and emotional well-being and report to medical staff. May participate in rehabilitation and treatment programs, help with personal hygiene, and administer oral or injectable medications. The job title says “psychiatric technicians”. The real job is the part underneath: encouraging patients to develop work skills and to participate in social. 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 psychiatric technicians is not one task. It is 16 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is encouraging patients to develop work skills and to participate in social, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 0%
changing shape: 3%
staying human: 97%

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

How we know this

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

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

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

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

0 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.

Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.

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.

Contacting patients' relatives to arrange family conferences
The software now makes the first pass at patients' relatives, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Contact patients' relatives to arrange family conferences.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 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: Arranging a family meeting is scheduling and contacting, which software does well, but the call is sensitive.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

15 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.

Encouraging patients to develop work skills and to participate in social
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Encourage patients to develop work skills and to participate in social, recreational, or other therapeutic activities that enhance interpersonal skills or develop social relationships.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Encouraging someone to join in works through a relationship built face to face on the ward.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring patients' physical and emotional well-being and reporting unusual behavior or physical ailments to medical staff
This work happens in the physical world: patients' physical, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Monitor patients' physical and emotional well-being and report unusual behavior or physical ailments to medical staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 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; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Written notes can be drafted automatically, but noticing a change in someone state means being with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Observing and influencing patients' behavior
This work happens in the physical world: patients' behavior, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Observe and influence patients' behavior, communicating and interacting with them and teaching, counseling, or befriending them.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Befriending and steadying a patient is the relationship itself, built in person over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with or assisting doctors
This work happens in the physical world: or assisting doctors, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Collaborate with or assist doctors, psychologists, or rehabilitation therapists in working with patients with cognitive, intellectual, or developmental disabilities to treat, rehabilitate, and return patients to the community.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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: Case discussion can be summarized automatically, but the joint work happens around the patient in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing or teaching strategies to promote client wellness and independence
This work happens in the physical world: strategies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop or teach strategies to promote client wellness and independence.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Wellness and independence strategies are well documented and easy to draft, though teaching them happens face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Restraining violent, potentially violent or suicidal patients by verbal or physical means
This work happens in the physical world: violent, potentially violent or suicidal patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Restrain violent, potentially violent, or suicidal patients by verbal or physical means as required.” (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: Holding back a patient at risk of harm is physical and has to happen on the spot.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Training or instructing new employees on procedures to follow with psychiatric patients
This work happens in the physical world: new employees, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Train or instruct new employees on procedures to follow with psychiatric patients.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Procedure training material writes itself from existing policies, but new staff are shown the ward in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Aiding patients in performing tasks
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Aid patients in performing tasks, such as bathing or keeping beds, clothing, or living areas clean.” (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: Helping someone bathe or keeping their room clean is physical help.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Taking and recording measures of patients' physical condition
This work happens in the physical world: measures of patients' physical condition, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Take and record measures of patients' physical condition, using devices such as thermometers or blood pressure gauges.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Taking a temperature or blood pressure means putting a device on the patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 6 tasks

Interviewing new patients to complete admission forms
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: new patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Interview new patients to complete admission forms, to assess their mental health status, or to obtain their mental health and treatment history.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Admission forms and history-taking follow a set structure software handles well, though the interview happens in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Issuing medications from dispensary and maintaining records in accordance with specified procedures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: medications, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Issue medications from dispensary and maintain records in accordance with specified procedures.” (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; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The record-keeping is routine, but handing out controlled medicines needs an authorized person at the cabinet.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Leading prescribed individual or group therapy sessions as part of specific therapeutic procedures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: prescribed individual, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Lead prescribed individual or group therapy sessions as part of specific therapeutic procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Therapy sessions work through the relationship between the patient and the person leading them.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing nursing, psychiatric or personal care to patients with cognitive, intellectual or developmental disabilities
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: psychiatric, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Provide nursing, psychiatric, or personal care to patients with cognitive, intellectual, or developmental disabilities.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Personal and nursing care is given by hand, directly to the patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Administering oral medications or hypodermic injections
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: oral medications, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Supplemental
Source: “Administer oral medications or hypodermic injections, following physician's prescriptions and hospital procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Giving tablets or an injection is a hands-on act reserved to trained staff.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Escorting patients to medical appointments
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Escort patients to medical appointments.” (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: Walking a patient to an appointment means going with them.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $45,130a 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: 156,960in 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: patients' relatives in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: contacting patients' relatives to arrange family conferences. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where patients 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: encouraging patients to develop work skills and to participate in social is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 0% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 3% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 97% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 16 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. Contacting patients' relatives to arrange family conferences 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 patients' relatives, 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 patients' physical 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 contacting patients' relatives to arrange family conferences. 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 psychiatric technicians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was psychiatric aides: only about 15% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 8/100 here, with only 0% of the task list in the top band, and “encourage patients to develop work skills and to participate in social, recreational…” 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.

Psychiatric Aides
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide nursing, psychiatric, or personal care to patients with cognitive, intellectual, or developmental…, and their equivalent is to provide patients with cognitive, intellectual, or developmental disabilities with routine physical, emotional, psychological…. Across both published task lists that is about 15% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 15% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. And it is a narrow door: about 35,520 of those jobs against 156,960 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 23% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Nursing Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already aid patients in performing tasks, and their equivalent is to provide physical support to assist patients to perform daily living activities. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Registered Nurses
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview new patients to complete admission forms, to assess their mental health status…, and their equivalent is to assess patients' mental and physical status, based on the presenting symptoms and complaints. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $97,550 against your $45,130 is 2.16× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 1% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
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: 0% of its task weight, across 16 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 encouraging patients to develop work skills and to participate in social arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Health associate professionals n.e.c. is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

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

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

Why there is no community here

Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for psychiatric technicians 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 psychiatric technicians 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 psychiatric technicians 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 psychiatric technicians 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 Psychiatric Technicians?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 16 official task statements scored for Psychiatric Technicians (United States, SOC 29-2053), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 8 out of 100 (range 4–13, band: minimal). 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 “Psychiatric Technicians” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Contact patients' relatives to arrange family conferences” (46/100, partial); “Develop or teach strategies to promote client wellness and independence” (23/100, low); “Train or instruct new employees on procedures to follow with psychiatric patients” (23/100, low). 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 “Psychiatric Technicians” stay human?: About 97% 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: “Escort patients to medical appointments” (0/100, minimal); “Administer oral medications or hypodermic injections, following physician's prescriptions and hospital procedures” (0/100, minimal); “Aid patients in performing tasks, such as bathing or keeping beds, clothing, or living areas clean” (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 “Psychiatric Technicians” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 97% 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 Psychiatric Technicians 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 16 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.

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.