Rehabilitative programs, such as drug rehab, are tactics used in order to divert nonviolent offenders from serving prison terms while simultaneously treating them in their community.   Rehabilitation seeks to return the offender back to his or her lives in the community and to reintegrate them into a stable, law-abiding lifestyle.  In some states, nonviolent offenders with no prior convictions are sent to rehabilitative treatment, such as drug rehab.  This is thought to be the more appropriate sentence for these individuals and an effort in combating recidivism rates. Treating nonviolent drug offenders instead of incarcerating them is a method that some states have begun to exercise in order to free up room in prisons.  However, only a small percentage of drug offenders receive rehabilitation.
According to Andrew W. Scull, who in his book “Decarceration: Community treatment and the deviant- a radical view” attempts to disprove the popular notion that more and more offenders are being diverted from prison and being let back into the community, there are not always financial savings from deinstitutionalization.  Costs for rehabilitative programs and facilities, such as mental hospitals, are variable, though the goal of saving money is enough for some elected officials to support the decline of incarceration.  Incarceration and the concept of public safety are at the forefront of legislators. The out of sight, out of mind attitude is adopted by a great majority of the public regarding drug offenders.  
However, the trend of rehabilitation is steadily increasing.   States such as Texas have introduced an alternative to prison for nonviolent offenders, one of which is rehabilitation.  Instead of allocating funding to housing a growing prison population, state officials have decided to instead introduce new forms of rehabilitation.  These rehabilitation programs seek to treat the individual and absolve criminal behavior, rather than merely isolate the individual from society, as incarceration does.  As a result, the Texas prison population has taken a noticeable decline. “In July, Texas' prison system posted its lowest head count in five years, even as the state's overall population continued to grow at a fast clip.”  If this decline in Texas’ prison population continues, this would mean that taxpayer money will be saved on funding high-cost correctional facilities and these communities will perhaps be safer.  Other states have begun to adopt this trend of rehabilitation instead of incarceration as well.  It is possible that as more states display success in rehabilitation programs that their usage will become more widespread.  

Nonviolent offenders now account for one-fourth of the entire United States prison population. They clog the criminal justice systems in courts and prisons.  This necessitates the allocation of a great amount of funding and resources.  
Nonviolent offenders in prisons will always be a pressing issue and a question for debate of whether or not these individuals should be incarcerated.  The housing of nonviolent offenders in prisons is not a beneficial to the individual inmate or to the community, as it is not an effective means of providing justice.  These individuals would best benefit from alternative sentencing, such as probation or rehabilitative substitutes in their communities.  If mandatory sentencing was abolished, judges would be able to use more of their discretionary power and provide sentencing that is individualized for the offender.  The implementation of alternative sentencing would undoubtedly aid in decreasing the rate of growth of the prison population, in addition to decreasing federal and state costs that are allocated to prisons.
