Throughout the mid-1990s and beyond, as violent crime decreased, some argued that tough sentencing laws and truth in sentencing laws were not effective. The sole cause for the drop in crime, they argued, was a good and growing economy. They were wrong.

Our economy is on the backside of a long downturn; crime rates should be high and growing. They are not. We have incarcerated more than 2 million people in this country, for longer periods than ever before. The revolving door for many violent offenders has slowed or stopped, and we are all safer. However, these results have been purchased at a great and growing price.

In South Carolina, we now have more than 24,000 inmates in our prison system. Today we manage 2,500 more offenders than we did three years ago. Unfortunately, our Corrections Department has not been provided with the resources required to attend to our growing inmate population. We will finish this year with 1,100 more inmates than last year’s ending count.

We have responded to this problem by undertaking a series of budget reduction efforts and by finding more efficiency. We are now the second-most-efficient prison system in the nation in terms of spending per inmate, allocating about $12,300 per year. Even so, corrections in South Carolina is a $300 million proposition.

It is both necessary and appropriate that our state make attempts to align available resources with the number of inmates that we must house and manage. To do so, certain legislative changes are in order. We cannot “do nothing” on the legislative front and expect to have different results. During the next legislative session, this administration will propose legislation that will create new sentencing alternatives for nonviolent offenders.

These sentencing alternatives would begin with a recommendation by the sentencing judge. The new legislation would allow nonviolent offenders to be screened and managed for an appropriate length of time at our institutions. Then, inmates would be placed in the community under appropriate levels of supervision. This approach has worked in South Carolina for years in our youthful offender and shock incarceration programs.

Judicial recommendation is important because it allows for the input of victims, law enforcement, solicitors, defendants and attorneys. A variety of supervision strategies such as electronic monitoring, home detention, intensive supervision or day reporting could be used to monitor the inmates who advance in the program.

These sentencing alternatives would focus on two groups of nonviolent offenders: those with sentences of one year or less and those with sentences of one year to five years.

For offenders with sentences of less than one year, Corrections would admit, screen and process the inmates. The Corrections Department would develop an appropriate transition and community supervision plan, identify appropriate requirements and conditions to be placed on the offender, and allow the offender to change his location to the community after service of 90 days in a “real prison” setting.

For nonviolent offenders with sentences of between one and five years, Corrections would develop a special six-month program that would address the factors that contribute to their criminal behavior (substance abuse, cognitive skills, employment issues, mental health needs, etc.). If the offender successfully completes this program then a community re-entry and supervision plan would be developed.

Focusing our energies on moving appropriate nonviolent offenders to more specific community placements would allow us to devote the majority of our institutional resources to the more violent or dangerous individuals who require extended periods of incarceration. About 50 percent of our inmate population is made up of violent offenders, and a growing percentage (presently 30 percent) of our population is made up of inmates sentenced under the truth-in-sentencing laws. We must have adequate resources to deal with these long-term criminal offenders.

Another unique aspect of this proposal is that it will not further clog an already-overburdened judicial system. As Corrections Department inmates, offenders violating the conditions of these lower levels of incarceration could be immediately moved back to prison. They would have a disciplinary hearing and they would continue to have access to the courts.

This immediate carrot-and-stick approach has been successful in drug courts across the state. This would be an entirely new idea in sentencing, giving offenders a “real prison” experience first, while offering an opportunity to advance to an alternative form of incarceration.

On behalf of Gov. Mark Sanford, House Speaker David Wilkins and Sen. Mike Fair have agreed to sponsor legislation to accomplish these objectives. Many other Democrats and Republicans have expressed an interest in helping to ensure this legislation is passed.

This is an important first step, but it is not a quick fix to our corrections funding crisis. The enactment of this legislation should result in a gradual, but slight reduction in the growth of our inmate population in a manner consistent with public safety considerations.

Mr. Ozmint is director of the S.C. Corrections Department.