In the wake of the recent leave of former Department of Correction Commissioner Michael T. Maloney and other shake-ups by Gov. Romney within his Public Safety office, it is clear that change is afoot. The commonwealth has a golden opportunity to re-shape the system in a way that works for the common good of every citizen and community. The question remains whether we will take advantage of it.

The state's corrections and parole agencies have long steered a course that focuses on holding offenders as long and as tightly as possible. The measures of success have been reduced to a minimalist "No riots. No deaths. No escapes." Re-examining and repairing the system against those short-sighted goals would be a lost opportunity to raise the bar for this important facet of criminal justice.

First, it should be recognized that the current system operates as all three branches of government demand. Since the late 1980s, the Executive Branch has articulated a "tough on inmates" policy, and its administrative agencies have complied. The Legislature has endorsed this vision by supporting mandatory sentencing laws and restrictions that keep inmates from community supervision. And, the Judiciary has supported sentences that preclude parole and prevent inmates from being assigned to community supervision as they near release.

The result is an organization that holds some 22,000 inmates and, as Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation revealed, costs more to operate than our higher education system. The vast majority of inmates are housed in expensive, high security facilities, and are released to the street with no oversight or support.

Second, we're not alone in this quest. States across the country facing tight budgets are recognizing that while "tough on crime" may be an easy platform to campaign from, it remains a terribly expensive and largely empty policy. Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri and South Dakota have adopted sentencing reforms making greater use of sentencing alternatives; Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Indiana, Mississippi, Kansas, Texas, South Dakota and Washington have reduced penalties for drug crimes; and, Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Washington have made changes to move more prisoners into community supervision.

Third, we must articulate what we want from our corrections system and demand that we get it. For the large and growing expenditure of taxpayer money, do we expect improved community safety? Do we want inmates to understand their responsibilities as parents and citizens when they return to our neighborhoods?

A simple yes is insufficient. To make the most of this opportunity, we must not only articulate a policy vision and demand that our corrections system delivers measurable results, we also must make sure the corrections budget is aligned in support of a new mission.

What if we were to demand from our corrections system a reduction in recidivism, meaning the rate at which inmates commit a new crime after their release?

It's not only a worthy goal, but attainable as well. Our Crime and Justice Institute, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice, is reshaping correctional practices in two states based on a very strong body of knowledge that identifies which offenders present the greatest risk of recidivism. Those are the ones on whom we must focus our attention and resources. No one guarantees 100 percent success, but it's clear that fewer crimes committed by former inmates will mean safer communities.

These interventions must begin at the start of a prison term, continue during incarceration, and carry on after release. Here, however, we have created a corrections and parole system that is strong on holding people but terribly weak on getting them ready for return to the community.

More than 80 percent of our correctional resources are devoted to high security. Only 12 percent of our prison space is set aside for minimum security. Compare that to Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, where the minimum security space ranges from as little as 18 percent to as much as 40 percent. Only 400 Massachusetts' inmates, or about 4 percent of the total, are assigned to community corrections centers. In Maryland, there are nearly 5,700 inmates in community corrections -- one quarter of that state's inmate population. And at CRJ, we know from the work of our community residential centers the value of good re-entry services for inmates leaving prison.

Our state has some of the brightest minds in the corrections field; experts who can offer examples of modern, best practices. Our efforts should be informed by their collective expertise.

The good news is that Massachusetts knows how to tackle corrections reform. The open question is whether we have the same vision and will displayed when we helped build the system that produces only broken rock.

John Larivee is the chief executive officer of Community Resources for Justice, a private non-profit agency that provides comprehensive services for troubled youth and male and female offenders. He can be reached at (617) 482-2520 or via e-mail at jjlarivee@crjustice.org.