In this article, we focus on two highly problematic issues in the manner in which the First Step Act of 2018 is being implemented by the Bureau of Prisons: an uncritical separation of “dynamic risks” and “criminogenic needs”; and a spurious reliance on “evidence‐based” interventions to reduce recidivism risk. We argue that if the Act is to live up to its promise of being a game‐changing development in efforts to reduce crime while simultaneously shrinking mass incarceration, “needs assessment” must be subject to vastly increased empirical attention, variable and causal risk factors must be identified and validly assessed, and interventions to reduce risk must be rigorously evaluated both for their fidelity of implementation and impact on recidivism. Rather than further proliferating programs that ostensibly reduce risk, we believe that serious consideration should be given to the Bureau of Prisons offering one signature, well‐established cognitive‐behavioral program that can simultaneously address multiple risk factors for moderate and high‐risk prisoners.

中文翻译：

---

翻译中遗失：执行第一步法时的“风险”，“需求”和“证据”。

在本文中，我们重点关注监狱局实施《 2018年第一步法》的方式中的两个极具问题的问题：``动态风险''与``犯罪需求''的不严格区分; 虚假地依赖“基于证据”的干预措施来降低累犯风险。我们认为，如果该法案能够实现其在减少犯罪，同时减少大规模监禁的同时改变游戏规则的发展承诺，则“需求评估”必须受到极大的经验关注，可变和因果风险因素必须进行识别和有效评估，并且必须严格评估降低风险的干预措施的执行准确性和对累犯的影响。与其进一步扩散表面上降低风险的程序，