EXPOSED
The core of this job is showing up in people's homes, churches, shelters, and clinic waiting rooms to build enough trust that someone actually takes their meds, keeps the prenatal appointment, or accepts a referral — that cultural brokering and physical presence is not automatable. What is automatable is the paperwork half: intake forms, case notes, eligibility screening, resource directory lookups, appointment reminder calls, and the health-education handouts CHWs currently assemble by hand. Licensure is the weak spot — most states require only voluntary certification, so there is no legal barrier to a payer replacing outreach headcount with an app plus a smaller field team.
Roughly flat across the period, with year-to-year wobble.
Median pay $40,360 → $51,850 +2.8% in real terms
This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.
So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.
BLS projection, 2024–2034
+11.3% 65,100 → 72,500 on the projections basis
Growing, and only partly exposed
The BLS expects +11.3% more of these jobs by 2034, and at 58/100 the work is only partly exposed — some tasks are automatable, the core of the job is not. Nothing here is in tension.
Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.
~7,800 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.
PromoterNavigatorContact TracerGuest AdvocatePeer NavigatorWellness CoachHealth AdvocateNurse NavigatorHealth NavigatorApprise CounselorCommunity LiaisonCommunity NavigatorLay Health AdvocateOutreach SpecialistPeer Health PromoterPublic Health WorkerCommunity Health AgentHealth Outreach WorkerMental Health AdvocateCommunity Health AdvisorCommunity Health AdvocateCommunity Health PromoterBehavioral Health AdvocateCommunity Health Assistant
Holding it up: trust premium . Weakest point: liability shield .
Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier At 13 rather than 16, the door-knocking, motivational-interviewing, and translating-a-discharge-plan-into-a-grandmother's-kitchen-Spanish half genuinely resists software, but the other half of a CHW's week — SDOH screening tools, entering encounters into the community-care platform, running a 211-style resource lookup, calling the no-show list — is already being handed to text-message bots and eligibility engines.
Hands-on in uncontrolled environments 14 reflects that the work happens in stairwells, encampments, food pantries, and unairconditioned apartments where you carry BP cuffs and glucometers, do home safety walk-throughs, and drive clients to appointments — uncontrolled environments, but with fewer clinical procedures on your hands than a home health aide, which is why it sits at 14 and not 18.
Certification preferred, not legally required 5 is the floor-plus-one for a role where most states offer only voluntary CHW certification (Texas, Indiana, Massachusetts credentials among them), no scope-of-practice statute protects your tasks, and the nurse or care manager above you signs off on anything clinical — the credential helps with Medicaid billing pathways, not with keeping the job.
Meaningful discretion 10 sits mid-band because you decide in real time whether a home visit has become unsafe, whether the depression screen warrants an immediate warm handoff, and whether to report suspected neglect — but the protocols, escalation thresholds, and care plans are written by supervising RNs and program managers, so you carry the judgment call without owning the final clinical decision.
The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.
Your task mix speaks to task resistance (13/20 here) — how much of the day's work current AI already does. That is the dimension the boxes above are about.
It cannot move the other three. Liability shield (5/20) is whether the law requires a licensed human to sign. Trust premium (16/20) is whether buyers specifically pay for a person. Judgment and accountability (10/20) is whether the role exists to own consequential calls. Those are facts about the occupation's standing, not about which tasks are in your week — a paralegal who does only trial exhibits still holds no licence. Together they are 31 of this occupation's 58 points (53%).
Embodiment (14/20) is also a property of the work rather than the worker, but we don't tag individual tasks as physical or not, so the picker can't tell you anything about it. That's a limit of this tool, not a claim.
Did we get the list right? Tell us what's missing — the tasks are written from the outside, and you're reading this from the inside.
The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 76/100 — SAFE.
CMS's 2024 Physician Fee Schedule made Community Health Integration services billable, but only when delivered by auxiliary personnel meeting state/certification standards under a billing practitioner. If more state Medicaid agencies follow Indiana, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Oregon in making a state-issued CHW certificate (with training hours and scope) a condition of payment, an app cannot be the billable entity — a certified named human must be attached to each billed encounter and to the supervising practitioner's attestation.
Genuine two-tier job: if intake forms, eligibility screening, resource-directory lookup, reminder calls and handout generation are absorbed by payer platforms, the residual role is the tier AI cannot do — entering an unfamiliar home, reading whether someone is lying about food in the fridge, defusing distrust of clinics. Task mix shift alone raises measured resistance without any new law.
If health-plan contracts formalize CHW escalation authority — the worker's field judgment triggering an urgent clinician callback, a CPS or adult-protective report, or an ED-diversion decision under an accountable-care shared-savings arrangement — the role owns consequential calls under ambiguity with a documented trail. Some Medicaid managed-care Health-Related Social Needs contracts already assign escalation criteria to CHWs.
If state CHW scope-of-practice rules add named-worker documentation duties for specific reimbursable acts (blood pressure self-measurement coaching, home asthma trigger assessment, closed-loop referral confirmation) such that an audit clawback lands on the individual certificate holder rather than only the agency, personal accountability attaches.
If payers or accreditors adopt language-and-community-concordance requirements (as some state Medicaid maternal-health and doula benefits now do), buyers are explicitly purchasing a specific human's community membership rather than an outreach function.
The limit. Trust premium is already near its practical ceiling: the buyer is a payer or health system optimizing cost per engaged member, not the community member being served, and payers have repeatedly substituted app-plus-smaller-field-team when allowed. Certification-linked reimbursement is the only lever with real teeth, and it protects the certificate, not the headcount — a state could certify CHWs while plans still cut caseload-per-worker ratios.
| New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ | 4,790 | $59,340 +14% |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA | 3,200 | $56,030 +8% |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 2,090 | $72,710 +40% |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH | 1,940 | $56,920 +10% |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV | 1,600 | $58,790 +13% |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN | 1,430 | $49,750 -4% |
| Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD | 1,300 | $49,720 -4% |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | 1,230 | $50,760 -2% |
| Carson City, NV | 100 | $81,600 +57% |
| San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA | 70 | $80,290 +55% |
| Eau Claire, WI | 40 | $78,090 +51% |
We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.
That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 58. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.
Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.
Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.