For-Profit Jails, Once Loved, Now on Shaky Ground

Three years ago, when entrepreneur Ernie Wright studied the county’s escalating jail overcrowding, he devised a way to help county officials tackle the problem and make a profit, too.

Wright offered to take some of the offenders off the county’s hands by placing them into his San Diego work-furlough facility: a private jail where inmates, in essence, pay Wright to be incarcerated.

Over the years, judges have sent a steady stream of convicts to Wright, keeping his 87-bed facility full and his bank account in the black. But now, private jailers such as Wright are concerned that their fledgling industry may soon go bust.

Two weeks ago, Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller sent a letter to the county’s judges opposing the commitment of any criminal defendant to a private work-furlough facility. According to Miller, sending offenders to such places, which are not under contract with the county, is a violation of state penal codes.

Wright and a handful of the county’s other private jailers say they have repeatedly asked the county for a contract to keep them in business, but have had their requests denied. County officials say such agreements with private operators means assuming responsibility for the outfits without being able to adequately supervise them.

But some operators say they’re being unfairly dismissed, and they criticize both county officials and the district attorney for not trying to save a program that is helping the county solve its jail woes.

When introduced, many judges enthusiastically welcomed private work-furlough centers such as Wright’s, because, like their public counterparts, they allow the offender to maintain a job, yet still withhold freedom. Inmates can leave only to go to work.

However, concerns about lack of supervision and other problems in part spurred the state Board of Corrections to ask the attorney general whether the courts had the authority to direct a person convicted of a crime to a private facility operating without a county contract. Last month, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp issued his opinion, saying that such an act was indeed a violation of state penal codes.

“I wrote my letter because the attorney general’s opinion was brought to my attention and I felt that the judges here ought to know about it,” Dist. Atty. Miller said.

Advocates say private work-furlough programs avoid using the county’s scarce supply of jail beds for minor-league criminals--and that such beds should be used instead to accommodate a burgeoning hard-core criminal population.

“If this county had adequate jail space, (the district attorney) might have a small argument,” Wright said. “But with the vast overcrowding that the county is facing, the fact that the DA’s office is opposing all private work-furlough centers is absurd.

“Here we are offering a viable alternative right in front of the county officials and they’re acting like the proverbial ostrich that sticks its head in the sand,” he said. “They’re not doing a damn thing to find alternatives to ease our jail crisis.”

Donna Woodley, owner and operator of Mid-City Work Furlough, added: “The most important thing to keep in mind is that we are providing a quality product that doesn’t cost the taxpayers a single dime. I think the supervisors need to contract with the providers or the law needs to be changed.”

The district attorney’s letter has received mixed reviews from judges who say they clearly recognize the benefits provided by private work-furlough programs, but are concerned about violating state penal codes.

“The attorney general’s opinion is fairly well-reasoned, and it clearly indicates that the private work furloughs don’t comply with the penal codes in that they are not administered by a work-furlough director who reports to the Board of Supervisors,” said Judge Ronald Prager of the North County Superior Court. “Therefore, they’re not required to meet health standards, building standards, etc., that are pertinent to the proper maintenance of the facilities and proper care of the inmates.

“The attorney general’s opinions do not have the force of law, but they certainly can be persuasive,” Prager said, “and I am persuaded by his arguments.”

But Judge E. Mac Amos, presiding judge of the San Diego Municipal Court, says private work-furlough facilities are needed to address jail overcrowding and that there is room for interpretation in the recent opinion.

“In a case where there is a minimum mandatory period of custody, meaning that custody is required, the opinion pretty much rules out the option of sending individuals to private work furlough,” Amos said.

But when custody is not required, and the judge has the option of putting an individual on probation, Amos believes private work furlough can still be used.

“It would appear that the opinion does not allow this to occur either,” he said, “but I believe a judge has the discretion to do that.”

Amos says such confusion can be resolved if the county provides a contract to the private operators. Wright couldn’t agree more. He acknowledges that he would like to do business with the county and offer his jail services for a “a hefty contract,” but says he’ll settle for much less.

“I’d be glad just to get a contract of recognition, something from the county that says they recognize us as a service provider,” Wright said. “Anything, really--just something to get us around this technicality.”

Private jailers say they don’t need a substantial financial contract to stay in business--they can make a profit by charging offenders room and board. Wright charges his “residents” $21 a day or $630 a month for two meals a day and a place to stay.

But county officials say that offering a contract of any sort to a private jailer will make the county accountable for any improprieties that occur.

“The moment you talk contract you bring in the issue of liability,” said Cecil Steppe, the county’s chief probation officer, who would be responsible for overseeing the private facilities if the county were to do business with them. “If something goes wrong in one of those facilities, they’re going to sue the county.

“I am not opposed to private work furloughs,” Steppe said. “But if there are no dollars to allow me to do an adequate job, then I’m going to recommend against it because the liability factor is far too great.”

In October, when Wright went before the Board of Supervisors and asked for a contract, Steppe informed the board that he would need more than $400,000 to adequately supervise a private facility comparable to Wright’s Pacific Furlough. Such an expenditure would cover items such as the hiring of 10 employees, primarily probation officers and clerks, a van, a mobile radio and a personal computer.

With the county suffering from fiscal problems, supervisors declined to award a contract to Wright.

Private operators insist that Steppe’s estimates are “grossly inflated,” and even some judges say such estimates “seem awfully high.”

While Wright acknowledges there are some inadequate private facilities, he says the district attorney’s ruling punishes the private jail industry across the board--including the legitimate operators. Most judges regard Pacific Furlough as a sound operation; it is also one of the few that meets state Department of Corrections standards and has received a conditional use permit from the city of San Diego.

Using a good private work furlough, Wright promises, can save county taxpayers much money. According to David Janssen, the county’s assistant chief administrative officer, it costs taxpayers $40 a day to house one inmate in a county jail.

“Even if you use that figure, which we believe is low, we house 85 residents, 365 days a year,” Wright said. “If you multiply that by $40 a day . . . our facility alone is saving the county $1.2 million a year.”

There are 225 to 250 private work-furlough beds in the county, he said, which could save the county nearly $4 million annually.

“You can send someone to a place where they can maintain their job, take care of their family and pay back society, or you can send them to an overcrowded jail where you have riots practically every week,” Wright said. “I think the right choice is fairly obvious.”

Wright quickly dismisses concerns about possible inmate abuse at his facility. His security staff is instructed specifically not to confront or restrain an uncooperative resident, he said.

“If a resident wants to violate curfew and just walks out we do not restrain him,” Wright said. “We just write him up, informing the judge that he is violating the conditions set for him, and he’s off to jail.” But as a safeguard, Wright added, he has a $1-million liability insurance policy.

Pacific Furlough Facility is supervised by a 17-member security staff. The guards carefully monitor a “resident’s” work schedule to verify that the individual is actually reporting to work, Wright said. Inmates and their possessions are searched routinely, and they are also subject to random drug testing.

But county officials remain skeptical. In the past there have been reports about drug use in the facilities and of guards showing favoritism toward inmates. Safety and sanitation standards have also proved inadequate at times.

County officials also question the private jailers’ claims that they can save the county millions of dollars and ease jail crowding. In many cases, Steppe says, the types of offenders sent to private furlough wouldn’t be sentenced to the county jails in the first place. These days, officials say, only hard-core criminals spend time behind bars.

“Comparing inmates in the county jails to the offenders sent to work furlough is like comparing apples and oranges,” he said.

Such arguments infuriate the private jailers.

“The people we take in are tried and convicted people,” Wright said. “You’re telling me that after we spend a lot of time and taxpayers’ dollars sending police officers out after them and prosecutors to prosecute them . . . we’re just going to set them free?”

“If that’s what they want to do, then I’ll get out of this business,” he said.