Supervisors Order Tighter Rules for Work Furloughs : Justice: Board urges judges to only send convicts to private centers that are under contract with the county and plans closer scrutiny of programs.

Alarmed that private work furlough centers in San Diego operate with no law enforcement supervision and minimal screening of convicts, the County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously ordered the strictest scrutiny yet of the businesses.

At the board’s behest, county officials were ordered to ask state court judges to stop sending offenders to any facility not under contract with the county.

If the court concurs, county administrators will demand that the city of San Diego’s three private work furlough centers sign contracts with the county and pay the cost of on-site supervision.

The contracts call for law enforcement supervision and mandatory drug tests for convicts, and extensive reporting by officials to the courts about the status of its residents. At the same time, county supervisors urged the judiciary to upgrade its sentencing and screening guidelines for those sent to work furlough.

“The Board of Supervisors cannot order judges not to use private work furlough centers,” Supervisor Susan Golding said. “But we can direct the chief administrative officer to work with the courts to develop and implement stronger sentencing and placement guidelines under which judges will place inmates in county-approved private work furlough facilities.”

The board’s discussion Tuesday was the first full public airing of what has become a dilemma involving private work furlough programs. The system allows low-risk criminals to work by day and stay at the centers by night for about $25-a-day room and board.

Local judges have endorsed the programs and have sent hundreds of convicts to the private centers over the years because the jails are too crowded. But there have been at least eight cases in the past year in which those sentenced to the private businesses have been arrested on charges such as attempted murder and drug possession.

To rectify some of the problems, the county is offering a contract to a private work furlough provider to operate 90 to 120 beds and is expected to decide Aug. 14 if it should be awarded. Pacific Furlough Facility, owned by former Chargers lineman Ernie Wright, is the only bidder.

Wright has been given permission by the city of San Diego to open a second, 438-bed facility in Sorrento Valley. Two other centers--Mid-City Work Furlough and the T&J; Women’s Home Society--also operate in San Diego. The city’s three private work furlough centers, which together house about 190 residents, are the only three in the state that operate without a county contract.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Wright said he welcomed the added scrutiny and was eager to finally be operating under a county contract. Wright said he already meets all federal, state and city standards for work furlough programs.

Board members approved a list of directives Tuesday for private work furlough. Besides directing the county’s chief administrator and chief probation officer to work with the courts in toughening guidelines for those eligible for work furlough, board members asked for contracts ensuring that the centers are inspected by probation officers, administer mandatory drug tests and report all violations.

It is now up to state court judges to decide whether they will go along with the county’s proposal.

Ronald Domnitz, presiding judge of the San Diego Municipal Court, said Tuesday he would have to study the plan and its costs to the private centers before he decides whether to endorse it.

“I would certainly support increased scrutiny of the program,” said Domnitz, who favors expansion of private work furlough because it costs taxpayers nothing. “I want to make sure the public is protected” without making it too costly for the work furlough facilities.

County Administrative Officer David Janssen said that, once a contract is signed with the county, “it will give the judges the certainty they need that someone is watching the facility.”

Two years ago, the Board of Supervisors contemplated a similar program but county probation officials said it would cost each business $500,000 a year to monitor properly. Because it was so costly, the idea was dropped.

That estimate has been reduced to $140,000, paying for three probation staff members, including one in charge of screening applicants, one to make sure the contract is followed and one as a clerk.

County officials say they cannot simply order the private work furlough centers to sign contracts because, if they refuse, there is little more they can do. By getting judges to agree to send convicts only to county-contracted facilities, the county’s leverage will be much greater, county administrators say.

The city of San Diego is conducting a separate investigation over what to do about private work furlough. So far, the city manager’s office is in the midst of deciding whether to put a Police Department employee in the businesses to check records and supervise the facilities. The City Council is scheduled to discuss the matter next week.