Lost in translation: “Risks,” “needs,” and “evidence” in implementing the First Step Act

Abstract

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.

Valid or voodoo? A qualitative study of attorney perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing and plea bargaining

“…Some scholars and policy experts have suggested a return to the practice of giving briefer sentences to individuals less likely to offend again as a way to reverse the trend of mass incarceration here in the United States (Frase, 2014). Indeed, the landmark bipartisan First Step Act, the first federal criminal justice reform bill in almost 20 years, relies heavily on the use of risk assessment (Skeem & Monahan, 2020).…”