A state criminal justice board pulled back from a plan to loosen the supervision of certain probationers Thursday after two Republican legislators said it could threaten public safety — and trigger steep cuts in funding for local probation offices.

The plan called for allowing some people convicted of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies to meet with local probation officers four times a year instead of monthly.

It appeared headed for passage at a meeting of the Criminal Justice Services Board until two nonvoting members — Sen. Thomas A. Garrett Jr. (R-Louisa) and Del. Jackson H. Miller (R-Manassas) — said it could jeopardize funding at a time of intensely tight budgets.

“It sounds to me like this is going to take a huge burden off probation and parole, and if this becomes how probation and parole operates, that’s where I’m going to look” for budget cuts, Miller said.

The board decided to delay action until its next meeting, which is in March — after the General Assembly is due to finish plugging a $2.4 billion budget hole.

The proposed policy change would affect probationers supervised by local probation offices, mostly offenders whose cases are handled in General District courts. State-run probation offices already operate under a system of “differential supervision,” which allows probationers deemed at low risk of reoffending to have more freedom than others.

Debate over the policy change comes as the nation reexamines tough-on-crime measures passed in previous decades. Even some law-and-order Republicans have come to embrace proposals meant to make it easier for prisoners to reenter society. In Virginia, for example, former governor Robert F. McDonnell (R) made restoring voting rights for some released felons a priority.

The proposed change to local probation practices grew, in part, out of a desire to eliminate unnecessary burdens on certain probationers, said Paula Harpster, criminal justice program coordinator for the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. The monthly meetings can interfere with work and result in “over-entangling” probationers in the criminal justice system just as they are trying to establish themselves outside it, she said.

“It’s a disruption in your life,” she said. “To come into the office and sit with a bunch of drug users in the waiting room — it’s more about doing the least restrictive type of supervision.”

Probationers would still have to fulfill court-ordered community service, drug testing or other terms of their probation, Harpster said. Twenty of the state’s 37 local probation offices already allow some low-risk probationers to check in less frequently by special permission, Harpster said. She said she wants state policy to reflect that practice.

Statewide, on average, 77 percent of local probationers would qualify for the reduced supervision, she said. And that’s where talk of budget cuts entered the equation.

At the meeting, Garrett, a former commonwealth’s attorney in Louisa, and Miller, a former Prince William County police officer, began with a law-and-order argument against the change. Garrett noted that misdemeanors include some drug and drunken driving offenses, stalking and “indecent liberties” offenses. But the pair also said that the change would slash the workloads of probation officers and that state legislators would likely cut their budgets accordingly.

“As we remove requirement for contact, somebody might look to reduce savings based on the reduced workload,” Garrett said.

Harpster said the change would not ease the probation officers’ workload, only shift their attention to offenders who need it more. But board members concluded that it could make them vulnerable to layoffs.

Richmond City Council member Michelle Mosby, a member of the board, supported the change but said the budget impact gave her pause.

“When we got to the budget piece, everybody had a moment of, ‘Ugh,’ because who wants to do anything that could cut anything for parole officers?” she said. “Immediately, it was a rethink.”