A tight state budget has state lawmakers contemplating funding reductions that will cause hardships for people in education and those needing various social and human services. More often than not, the debate over budgeting and funding cuts produces bitter partisan bickering.

Prison reform is one area, at least, where politicians from both parties should be able to agree and work together. It’s an area ripe for rethinking in Pennsylvania, with the goal of reducing costs while making rehabilitation more humane and effective.

Corrections reform has the potential for rare bipartisan cooperation. State lawmakers and Gov. Tom Corbett should put prison reform at the top of their agenda and start talking about it.

Nearly every state is struggling to close budget deficits and prison reform offers the opportunity to save money. It also can lead to more humane and effective treatment of the large nonviolent prison population.

The need to do something different is clear. In 1980, there were 7,000 prisoners in Pennsylvania. Today, there are nearly 50,000. Building more prisons and paying additional prison guards has driven up state spending on corrections by 77 percent since 2003, to the current level of nearly $1.9 billion.

In Pennsylvania, prison costs are now the third-largest budget item, after education and welfare spending.

Offering a rare opportunity for conservatives and liberals to work together, prison reform is showing results in several states, notably Texas, not known for coddling criminals, and South Carolina, with reduced costs and lower rates of recidivism.

Nobody can argue that the current approach of being “tough on crime” is working. Crime rates are not going down and prison costs are skyrocketing, while the burden is also taking a toll on the court system. It’s time to rethink sentencing and how nonviolent offenders are treated.

The reform movement in Texas and elsewhere generally tries to reserve expensive prison beds for dangerous criminals. Then the goal is to move the larger numbers of nonviolent offenders, who usually have drug and alcohol or mental health issues, into aggressive treatment programs.

The newer programs often feature specialised drug courts and the use of intensive supervision with customized probation, electronic monitoring and halfway houses.

Bipartisan agreement is possible on prison reform with conservatives approaching the problem from a cost-savings perspective, while liberals come to issue looking for more humane and effective ways to help nonviolent offenders return to society and avoid a trip back to prison that costs taxpayers and society at large.

The old approach of being tough on crime and “three strikes and you’re out” has not worked. In California, the tough- on-crime policy also was pushed by the prison unions which saw it as a way to get more dues-paying members. It has not worked and it’s placed a huge burden on California taxpayers.

Across the country, the old approach has failed. Costs have risen dramatically and crime rates have not dropped despite tough sentencing, which has produced crowded prisons that cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year.

It’s time for a new approach that spends less and does more to keep nonviolent criminals out of prison and help them avoid a return to prison. One commentary suggested that instead of being tough on crime, it’s time to be smart on crime.

Former Pennsylvania Gov. George Leader, 1955-1959, is promoting prison reform. His view is shared by Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel, who wants to change the status quo.

A public tired of a too-often dysfunctional state Legislature would welcome an effort that saves taxpayers money and encourages lawmakers to work together. Prison reform represents an opportunity for both.