If Congress agrees, the feds would need to work closely with states and cities to make certain the proper resources are in place before they start turning would-be prisoners loose.

The president would need to express in specifics rather than generalities what the feds intend to do. He needs to say how the changes would be funded and who would be responsible for making sure the changes are carried out safely and effectively.

Thoughtful, successful state prison reforms have prioritized public safety, while also saving money. Such data-driven changes have cost money up front, reinvesting some taxpayer savings in making sure fewer inmates return to prison, while saving money on the back end.

After some false starts, states like Nebraska, Wisconsin and Texas have pursued smarter approaches on crime, aided by the Council of State Governments and its justice system experts.

The group’s policy prescription of punishing more nonviolent criminals in their home communities and making sure prison beds are available for the hard cases has worked in states that put the necessary services in place.

That includes adequate mental health and substance abuse counseling; job training; financial and life-skills training; parenting classes and appropriate levels of staffing, training and support for probation and parole officers.

This isn’t cheap. But experiences in Texas and elsewhere show it’s cheaper than building more prisons. Early returns also show that helping more inmates learn to live law-abiding lives works.

Texas spent $241 million on treatment programs inside prisons and in cities and counties. Texas created drug and problem-solving courts. It saw fewer murders, robberies and rapes. The state also saw criminals’ return trips to prison drop by nearly six percentage points. By last year, the changes had saved taxpayers more than $3 billion.

Under new leadership, Nebraska’s thoughtful prison reform efforts are just getting started. The Legislature made some new investments in inmate treatment and counseling. Job training is making a comeback. Criminal sentences for lesser crimes now allow more use of probation.

But state officials know they must do more. Sustaining public support for punishing nonviolent criminals — mainly drug users — in their home communities requires coordination.

States and the feds must communicate well their reasoning and expected results. They must appropriately fund the services needed to help cities, counties, treatment providers and police to prepare for the return of drug dealers and addicts.

Americans have long memories of the urban and rural crime waves that followed the arrivals of crack cocaine and methamphetamine. No one wants to return to unsafe streets.

Conservatives and liberals agree that prisons hold inmates who could safely be punished, monitored and rehabilitated in their communities — at lower cost. But states and the federal government must take the time to prepare and succeed.