| 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… |