The city could save more than $21 million a year if it would consider releasing some non-violent offenders serving time in city jails and placing them on probation or parole.

That's the message advocates are promoting at a time when the Nutter administration continues to grapple with a budget crisis of massive proportions.

During a recent meeting of the Coalition for Essential Services, a broad-based organization of community agencies throughout the city, prison-system reformers joined with local and state elected officials, probation/parole officers, representatives of the city public defenders office and others to detail their plan.

According to proponents, the city would save $21.4 million annually if it diverted non-violent offenders, such as those serving time for possessing small amounts of illegal drugs, to rehabilitation or re-entry programs or recommended them for probation or parole.

"My point with this is I think you should think big when you talk of the prison system," Leon King, former commissioner of the Philadelphia Prison System, told about 30 people in attendance to hear a breakdown of the proposal.

According to an informational sheet distributed at the meeting, the city spends more than $43.7 million annually for the incarceration of 1,250 non-violent offenders. The fact sheet contends that placing the same number of inmates on probation or parole would cost the city $875,000 a year, delivering an annual savings of about $42.9 million.

Cost-saving measures are crucial in a time of fiscal uncertainty, speakers said, and they touted their proposal as a way to deliver savings to the cash-strapped city.

King, the city's prison commissioner for six years, until January 2008, said the largest segment of Philadelphia's prison population consists of those sentenced for drug offenses, primarily for possession rather than distribution. He said there currently are about 4,172 inmates in jail for drug possession, compared with 1,481 for drug distribution.

King said the inmate overcrowding that continues to plague city prisons can be attributed to two factors: length of stay and new admissions. Theoretically, the city can admit as many inmates as it wants, he said, as long as there is an ample number of releases to balance the process.

Many others are detained in the prison system while awaiting trial; those approved for bail often can't afford to post it and remain incarcerated, King said.

He estimated that the city's system admits about 36,000 inmates a year; the number of releases is slightly below that figure, he said. King also noted that during 2007 and '08, there was an increase of more than 20 percent in the number of first-time offenders sentenced to prison.

While discussing potential savings for the city, King noted a distinction between variable and fixed costs. The fixed costs, which account for the bulk of the prison system budget, include such expenditures as electricity payments and janitorial services, while variable costs represent expenses related to dry goods, clothing and bedding, and payments to prisoners, King said.

Releasing non-violent offenders from confinement, many of whom are housed in the same facilities, would help to lower fixed costs, he said.

"You have to close a facility, or a major part of a facility, to save money," King said.

If even a wing were closed, that would mean the "lights are off," translating to cost savings, he said.

By contrast, if only a small number of inmates were released, the variable costs, or those costs representing a minimal part of the prison budget, would be the only thing affected, he said.

King estimated that the prison system spends $35,386 annually on fixed costs per inmate, compared with $302 on variable costs. The variable expenditures are drastically lower because it doesn't cost the city much to clothe and feed an inmate, he said.

The reform panel also disputed what it called common myths - for example, that recidivism is the root cause of prison overcrowding, or that keeping inmates locked up for longer periods keeps them out of the criminal mainstream.

Some proponents rejected those claims, insisting that studies have contended that the longer someone stays in prison, the more institutionalized he becomes within a criminal environment. Although the goal of prison is rehabilitation, it can inadvertently become crime school, presenters said.

The main point, King said, is that there's a common misconception that the prison population is composed mostly of violent offenders. In reality, he added, non-violent offenders represent a majority of the population.

"If we can, in this city, reduce the prison population and save money, and at the same time enhance public safety, that would be ideal," King said.

He and others have a supporter in City Councilman Curtis Jones Jr. He backs the proposal to release a specific number of non-violent offenders to help save the city money, having been involved in the studies and research since the start of the budget process.

Jones said 24 percent of Philadelphia's budget is devoted to policing, the courts and the prison system.

"There is no way around that elephant in the room," Jones said recently by phone. "We can count all of the paper clips that we want, but we will not realize savings and efficiencies until we tackle that area."

Jones said 45 days is the average stay for an inmate who is awaiting trial and cannot afford to post bail. Often, taxpayers are paying more to house that inmate for those 45 days than the cost of the bail itself, Jones claimed, noting the breakdown of fixed and variable costs.

"That does not make sense to me," Jones said. "If they are indeed non-violent . . . (if) you can determine that that person is not a major risk to society and its safety, instead of putting them in jail, where they become, in most cases, a more sophisticated criminal," why not divert prison time and opt instead for community service, Jones said.

He thinks it's time to consider other approaches when dealing with non-violent offenders. Suggestions ranged from sentencing them to obtain their GED (General Educational Development) or learn a trade that can lead to employment.

"This is not a hug-a-thug program," Jones said.

It would be designed in such a way that if the person were working, a certain amount of their earnings - besides what is needed for room and board - would be devoted to other areas, such as aiding the homeless, paying fines or reimbursing a victim's insurance deductible if the inmate is found guilty of a crime like theft from an automobile.

While the proposal still has to be formally presented to city leaders, Jones thinks it's a step in the right direction.

"I applaud what they are doing down there," he said of the study group. "These are professionals who understand what the value of this program, and the proper risk assessment, can be to our bottom line."

Jones said he has been in contact with Everett Gillison, deputy mayor for public safety, about the cost-saving measures that have been put forth, and he also presented the proposal to a criminal-justice advisory board several months back.

"At this point, it's just a work in progress," Jones said of the proposal.

Reporter Jon Campisi can be reached at 215-354-3038 or jcampisi@phillynews.com