Supervisors Act to Put More Criminals in Private Jails

Hoping to cut costs and alleviate jail overcrowding by expanding the use of alternative forms of detention, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors Tuesday moved to expedite a plan to house more criminals in private work-furlough detention centers.

By a unanimous vote, the board, seeking to eliminate doubts about the legality of such private jails, instructed county administrators to proceed with plans under which private companies would contract with the county to operate the centers.

In addition to ordering Chief Administrative Officer Norman Hickey to develop plans to solicit project bids within one month, the board also voted to send letters to the presiding judges of the Superior and Municipal courts encouraging them to make maximum potential use of the private detention centers.

“Addressing the overcrowded jail conditions is one of our highest priorities,” said Supervisor Leon Williams, who brought the work-furlough issue before the board last June. “We need to . . . utilize as many feasible alternatives to incarceration as possible.”

Currently, four private facilities house about 200 work-furlough defenders countywide, and the county itself operates two work-furlough programs involving about 160 offenders. Tuesday’s board action could increase those numbers by removing local judges’ reluctance to sentence offenders to the private centers, as well as possibly attracting new firms interested in operating such facilities.

Advocates insist the private work-furlough centers, where inmates pay a daily fee and which they can leave only to go to work, are well suited for minor offenders, allowing the county’s scarce jail space to be devoted to the hard-core criminal population. Based on county figures showing that it costs taxpayers $40 a day to house inmates in county jails, the existing local work-furlough beds could save the county up to $4 million annually, according to operators of the private facilities.

But skeptics complain of inadequate supervision at some facilities, citing past reports of drug use and of guards showing favoritism toward inmates. Some private jails also occasionally failed to meet basic safety and sanitation standards.

Tuesday’s action, taken in the absence of Supervisors George Bailey and Susan Golding, stemmed from a dispute earlier this year prompted by law enforcement officials’ objections to the private jails.

In January, state Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp issued an opinion stating that assigning a person convicted of a crime to any private jail operating without a county contract violates state penal codes. Based on that opinion, San Diego Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller Jr. sent a letter to local judges opposing the commitment of any criminal defendants to private work-furlough centers. As a result, many judges stopped placing criminals in the private jails.

Last month, however, County Counsel Lloyd Harmon’s office ruled the private facilities do not necessarily need a contract with the county in order to receive placements from the courts. Even so, Williams emphasized that requiring the private facilities to contract with the county will help ensure they are both safe and “fulfilling the needs they are being asked to meet.”

While Harmon’s opinion provided a legal underpinning for Tuesday’s vote, an additional obstacle facing the supervisors dealt with initial estimates that it would cost the county more than $400,000 annually to oversee the private facilities. County Chief Probation Officer Cecil Steppe said previously that that expenditure would fund the hiring of 10 officers and the purchase of a van, a mobile radio and a personal computer.

With the county facing severe fiscal constraints, that potential cost was a major factor in the board’s refusal last year to award a contract to the Pacific Placement Facility, an 87-bed center in Logan Heights that is the largest local private detention center. That refusal, combined with Van de Kamp’s ruling, caused Pacific Placement’s inmate population to drop to about two-thirds of its capacity, threatening its financial survival, according to Michel Anderson, a representative of Pacific owner Ernie Wright.

“The judges just stopped sending offenders to Ernie,” Anderson said. “What (Tuesday’s) vote does is make us legal and once and for all settle that question.”

Pressed to curtail his potential administrative costs, Steppe told the supervisors Tuesday that he would need at least two, and preferably three, additional staff members--costing a total of about $100,000--to oversee the private detention program. But Supervisor Brian Bilbray indicated that he hopes even that estimate can be further reduced by the time county administrators return to the board with the proposed bid requests.

“When you say your preference is three people and the bare bones is two . . . that means you usually can get the job done with one,” Bilbray said.

Steppe replied: “I’m very comfortable with that, as long as the board understands that increases the risk.” As an example, he said that, while private centers’ staff members cannot compel offenders to make court-ordered appearances, probation officers can use their powers of arrest under such circumstances.

“We’re breaking ground in a lot of new areas,” Bilbray said. “It may be that we have to accept some more risks.”