Gov. Neil Abercrombie promised a year ago to bring back all Hawaii inmates serving sentences in mainland prisons, which seemed a plausible goal as crimes, arrests and felons sentenced to prison dropped in recent years. Now, a new landmark study is providing policy direction that promises to be pivotal for state administrators and legislators to increase efficiency in our prisons system, lower the inmate population and thus costs to taxpayers, and improve outreach re-integration without compromising public safety.

Of the state’s 6,061 inmates today, 1,741 are at privately run Arizona institutions, a barely visible drop from about 1,800, at a yearly cost of $40 million.

Among the system’s problem spots, as found by the nonprofit Council of State Governments Justice Center: Some prisoners are those just arrested for felonies, who are held for 71 days before being released on bail, supervised release or recognizance — up to five times longer than the average in 39 U.S. counties. The average is five days in Los Angeles and four days in Maricopa, Ariz., through streamlining of treatment of inmates who are at low risk for committing repeat offenses.

Robert Coombs, the center’s senior policy analyst examining the Hawaii project, said caps for those low-risk inmates who may have committed technical violations are more effective and at the same time economical. "You are in a very, very good position to start realizing savings very quickly," Coombs told the Star-Advertiser’s Rob Perez.

That’s certainly encouraging, especially given the high costs — both financial and societal — of Hawaii’s clunky, overburdened system struggling with shortages in staff and out-in-the-community options.

The data also showed a surge in the number of high-risk inmates who have "maxed out" prison terms and been released into the community without any monitoring. That troubling situation, counter to a national trend, points to possible need for wiser sentencing terms that give high-risk inmates greater incentives to undergo monitoring as a condition for lower minimum-year sentences.

City Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro opposes "the idea of releasing inmates if it is based solely on the need to save money or because of the lack of prison space." Fair enough. But as the study notes, there are systemic deficiencies that sometimes meant incarcerations longer than what is shown effective for protecting public safety.

Hawaii has added years in prison for parolees who have engaged in technical, noncriminal violations, such as failing a urine test, while other states have recommitted them for no more than one to three months. Coombs said smaller caps for low-risk inmates are more effective.

Indeed, state Circuit Judge Steven Alm’s Project HOPE — Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement — has received national recognition for sending probation drug violators to jail for short periods instead of to prison. The Justice Center noted that in one year, HOPE probationers were 55 percent less likely to be arrested for a new crime, 72 percent less likely to use drugs, 61 percent less likely to skip appointments with their supervisory officers and 53 percent less likely to have their probation revoked.

Jodie Maesaka-Hirata, the state public safety director, noted that a shortage of community-based services, which are needed as a condition of release, has existed for years because of not-in-my-backyard resistance. If so, that’s a necessary re-investment of savings, and mindset change, that must be part of the overall solution.

The study’s analysts will issue a final report next month, with recommended changes and legislation, for the Abercrombie administration, legislators and Judiciary officials. Such improvements toward effectiveness and efficiency are eagerly awaited: If Hawaii can make inexpensive changes to realize substantial savings, without compromising public safety, these would be welcome indeed.