DOCSLIB.ORG

Inmates in Private Prisons 2000-2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inmates in Private Prisons 2000-2009 Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem A Quality Assessment of Arizona’s Private Prisons February, 2012 Arizona Program 103 N. Park Avenue, Suite #111 Tucson, AZ 85719 520-623-9141 [email protected] Illustration by Jeffrey Collins The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that in- cludes people of various faiths who are committed to social justice, peace, and humani- tarian service. Our work is based on the principles of the Religious Society of Friends, the belief in the worth of every person, and faith in the power of love to overcome vio- lence and injustice. AFSC was founded in 1917 by Quakers to provide conscientious objectors with an opportunity to aid civilian war victims. The Arizona office of AFSC was established in 1980 and focuses on criminal justice reform. About the Author Caroline Isaacs is the Program Director for the American Friends Service Committee of- fice in Tucson, Arizona. She has worked at AFSC for over 15 years, focusing on criminal justice reform in Arizona. Isaacs has a Bachelor’s in Political Science from the College of Wooster and a Master’s in Social Work from Arizona State University, where she teaches as an adjunct faculty member and serves as a Field Student Liaison. Acknowledgments The American Friends Service Committee expresses profound appreciation to all the im- prisoned men and women, ex-prisoners, and their family members whose lives are im- pacted every day by Arizona’s criminal justice system. Their words and testimonies make this a powerful document, from which change is possible. Our sincere gratitude to Maureen Milazzo, who compiled, sorted, and analyzed piles of data for the report. We are also grateful to Eisha Mason, King Downing, Alexis Moore, Richard Erstad, and Aaron Crosman for their assistance in editing this report. Thanks to Ken Kopczynski and Frank Smith at Private Corrections Working Group for their support of our efforts in Arizona and to Grassroots Leadership for their assistance. AFSC would also like to acknowledge the wonderful work of all of our persistent volun- teers, committee members, and interns. Published by American Friends Service Committee-Arizona 103 N Park Avenue, Suite #111 Tucson, AZ 85719 520.623.9141 [email protected] © 2012 American Friends Service Committee. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Printed copies of this report are available from the AFSC’s Arizona Criminal Justice program. Available online at: http://afsc.org/arizona-prison-report. Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................................. 1 Department of Corrections’ 2011 Biennial Comparison of Private and Public Prisons . 3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6 Background and History .............................................................................................................. 10 Arizona Prison Population Growth ..................................................................................... 12 2010: Unprecedented Prison Expansion in Arizona ......................................................... 15 Arizona’s Cost Comparison Study ...................................................................................... 19 Who’s Doing Business In Arizona? ...................................................................................... 22 Performance Measure I: Safety and Security: ........................................................................... 29 State-Contracted Private Prison Security Assessments .................................................... 30 Security Assessments of CCA Facilities .............................................................................. 40 Assaults: Inmate-on-Inmate ................................................................................................. 41 Assaults: Staff on Inmate ...................................................................................................... 47 Riots .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Escapes ..................................................................................................................................... 57 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 59 Performance Measure II: Staffing ............................................................................................... 60 Staffing: State Contracts ........................................................................................................ 62 Staffing in CCA Prisons in Arizona ..................................................................................... 67 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 69 Performance Measure III: Programs and Services ................................................................... 70 Deaths in State-Operated Facilities: ..................................................................................... 70 Deaths in Privately Operated State Prisons ........................................................................ 71 Recidivism ............................................................................................................................... 74 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 79 Performance Measure IV: Transparency and Accountability ................................................ 80 Transparency ........................................................................................................................... 80 Accountability ......................................................................................................................... 82 Are Prison Corporations Are Writing Arizona’s Laws? ................................................... 84 Private Prison Influence-Peddling in Arizona ................................................................... 86 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 93 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 95 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 97 Executive Summary Arizona has enthusiastically embraced When AFSC learned that the state had not prison privatization, with 13% of the state properly monitored and reported on pri- prison population housed in private facili- vate prison operations since state law ties (the 11th highest percentage in the na- mandated it in 1987, AFSC undertook its tion). Motivated by a belief that private own investigation into the private prison enterprise could build and manage pris- industry in Arizona. The Arizona De- ons safely and at lower cost than the state, partment of Corrections (ADC) later an- the legislature has mandated construction nounced that it would complete the statu- of thousands of private prison beds. Lit- torily-required biennial comparison re- tle was done over the years to test actual view, which was released on December 21, performance of private prisons or to de- 2011. termine their cost effectiveness. The ADC study contains very little meth- In the summer of 2010, three inmates es- odological information or supporting data, caped from the privately operated King- suffers from inconsistent data collection man prison, killed two people, and shat- procedures, and overlooks important tered the myth that private prisons can measures of prison safety. By contrast, keep us safe. Since that time, more evi- AFSC’s report incorporates data that was dence has come to light unmasking the omitted or deemed to be outside the scope truth about the private prison industry in of the ADC review, including security au- Arizona: It is costly, plagued by security dits of private prisons before and after the problems, and in some cases is violating state Kingman escapes and data on six prisons and federal law. State leaders have failed in operated by Corrections Corporation of their responsibility to protect the public, to America that are located in Arizona but do provide adequate oversight of this indus- not contract with the state, putting them try, or to hold the corporations accounta- outside state oversight. ble for their failures. In addition, AFSC’s analysis incorporates This report is the first of its kind in Arizo- additional performance measures which na. To date, no independent analysis of the have emerged as important aspects of the performance and quality of all private
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Private Prisons an Industry Raising Concerns for Socially Responsive Investors
    Research Reporter Issue 2, 2019 Private Prisons An Industry Raising Concerns for Socially Responsive Investors Private prisons, formally known as correctional facilities, through its proprietary operations as well as the and private immigration detention centers frequently operations of its subsidiaries. In 2018, 64% of GEO make the headlines due to controversial practices, Group’s total revenues came from U.S. corrections and events, and political ties. The private prison industry has detentions operations.2 been accused of lowering inmate safety, influencing imprisonment rates, and allowing inhumane treatment in Proponents of privatized prisons advocate for their use to the facilities. Residential reentry facilities, or halfway local, state, and federal government agencies through a houses, are also often privatized, as are the collaborative partnership. Theoretically, the private transportation services for moving people between prison industry saves the government money by government and private locations. Some private facilities outsourcing detention and corrections, rather than the also offer educational, vocational, health, and behavioral government building new structures or hiring additional services and training to prepare residents for return to employees itself. their communities. A majority of private prison and Opponents of the privatization of prisons suggest several detention services are controlled by two main corporate industry problems, including: understaffing, safety risks, actors: CoreCivic (CXW) and GEO Group (GEO). human rights abuses, and influencing political agendas. In As of December 31, 2018, CoreCivic owned or controlled the private prison industry, one problem or complication forty-four correctional and detention facilities, owned or seems to lead to another. To keep costs down—and controlled twenty-six residential reentry facilities, and profits up—private prisons often try to hire minimally.
    [Show full text]
  • Congratulations GEO EMPLOYEES of the YEAR Chairman’S Letter George C
    World 3RD QUARTER 2019 A GEO Publication for Employees and their Families. Congratulations GEO EMPLOYEES OF THE YEAR Chairman’s Letter George C. Zoley, Chairman, CEO and Founder All of these important milestones underscore our leadership position within our industry and are underpinned by the hard work, dedication, and professionalism of our growing workforce. To the GEO Family, As is tradition during the third quarter in the lives of the men and women Correctional Centre, bringing the of every year, we celebrate the in our care. Our workforce is diverse, facility’s total capacity to 1,600 accomplishments of our employees and our employees represent their beds. around the world with our GEO communities proudly as security Employees of the Year awards. professionals, teachers, social Additionally, we were recently workers, nurses, doctors, and more. awarded new ten-year contracts Through the years, our company We are proud of the work they do, by the Federal Bureau of Prisons has grown to be the world’s premier and the commitment they show to for our company-owned 1,800-bed provider of enhanced offender our company’s mission of providing North Lake Correctional Facility, rehabilitation and post-release high-quality services in the safest, and for the county-owned 1,800- support programming. We have most humane environment possible. bed Reeves County Detention also established our company as a Center I & II and 1,376-bed Reeves world leader in the delivery of secure Over the last few months, our County Detention Center III, management services for correctional company announced several where GEO provides management facilities and ICE processing centers, important milestones.
    [Show full text]
  • Hustle and Flow: Prison Privatization Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex
    FULCHER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 6/10/2012 2:43 PM Hustle and Flow: Prison Privatization Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex Patrice A. Fulcher* ABSTRACT The Prison Industrial Complex (“PIC”) is a profiteering system fueled by the economic interests of private corporations, federal and state correctional institutions, and politicians. The PIC grew from ground fertilized by an increase in the U.S. prison population united with an economically depressed market, stretched budgets, and the ineffective allocation of government resources. The role of the federal, state, and local governments in the PIC has been to allocate resources. This is the first of a series of articles exploring issues surrounding the PIC, including (1) prison privatization, (2) outsourcing the labor of prisoners for profit, and (3) constitutional misinterpretations. The U.S. prison population increased in the 1980s, in part, because of harsh drug and sentencing laws and the racial profiling of Blacks. When faced with the problem of managing additional inmates, U.S. correctional institutions looked to the promise of private prison companies to house and control inmates at reduced costs. The result was the privatization of prisons, private companies handling the management of federal and state inmates. This Article addresses how the privatization of prisons helped to grow the PIC and the two ways in which governments’ expenditure of funds to private prison companies amount to an inefficient allocation of resources: (1) it creates an incentive to increase the prison population, which led to a monopoly and manipulation of the market by Correction Corporation of America (“CCA”) and The GEO Group, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Transform the Harsh Economic Reality of Working Inmates
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 27 Issue 4 Volume 27, Winter 2015, Issue 4 Article 4 Emancipate the FLSA: Transform the Harsh Economic Reality of Working Inmates Patrice A. Fulcher Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EMANCIPATE THE FLSA: TRANSFORM THE HARSH ECONOMIC REALITY OF WORKING INMATES PATRICE A. FULCHER* ABSTRACT Prisoner labor is a booming American industry. The 2.3 million people in the United States of America ("U.S.") behind bars serve as human resources sustaining the Prison Industrial Complex. In a less economically depressed market, perhaps there would be national prison reform campaigns geared toward decreasing the prison population. But in today's economic climate, the increase of U.S. inhabitants sentenced to prison has helped to quench the thirst for cheap, and in many instances, free laborers. Proponents of the use of inmate labor in the U.S. have argued that inmates should not be paid minimum wages because working for free is a part of the punishment for their crime. However, critics maintain that forcing inmates to work for free is the rebirth of chattel slavery. In order to protect the rights of workers, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") in 1938, which in part, established the national minimum wage requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Prison Privatization in Arizona
    Prison Privatization in Arizona A briefing paper prepared by the American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area Program American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area 103 N. Park Ave., Ste. 111 Tucson, AZ 85719 (520)623-9141 (520)623-5901 fax [email protected] October 2010 Introduction The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that works for peace and justice worldwide. Our work is based on a commitment to nonviolence and the belief that all people have value and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The AFSC‟s programs promote social justice by focusing on a diverse set of social concerns. The organization‟s criminal justice work has always focused on the need for an effective and humane criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment. Here in Arizona, our criminal justice program advocates for a reduction in the state‟s prison population through rational sentencing reform and a moratorium on new prison construction. A key focus of that effort is our work to educate the public on the risks inherent in prison privatization through for-profit prison corporations. This document is an attempt to paint a picture of the current efforts at privatization of prisons in the state of Arizona and raise questions about the potential pitfalls of this practice. Arizona Overview Arizona‟s experiment with for-profit incarceration began in the early 90‟s when the state faced the first of many prison overcrowding crises. Arizona‟s first privately operated prison was the Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility, a minimum-security prison for people with substance abuse issues.
    [Show full text]
  • 6Th Discussion Note on the Private Border Complex
    1 The Corporate Lobbying Alignment Project Discussion note no.6 Investor responses to corporate lobbying & public policy capture by Border Industrial Complex companies JANUARY 2021 PREVENTABLE SURPRISES 2 DISCUSSION NOTE NO.6 3 Index 4 Background on the Border Industrial Complex Human rights risks & lobbying by BIC companies 6 Influence & lobbying by BIC companies: opportunities for investor engagement Human rights risks in the Border Industrial Complex require systems-wide investor 10 engagement 11 Appendix 1 - BIC market segments 12 Appendix 2 - Trade Associations PREVENTABLE SURPRISES 4 Background on the Border Industrial Complex The privatisation and militarisation of international borders are well known. So are the associated human rights, reputational, and market risks to investors.1 Global asset owners such as CalPERS and Norges Bank Investment Management have recently made decisions to either engage with or exit their holdings in private prison companies on ethical and financial grounds, indicating the changing risk profile of companies operating in the Border Industrial Complex (BIC). BIC companies include private and public entities involved in border policing, detention, surveillance, and transportation of migrants. Growth in the BIC has been supported by heavy lobbying to enable a system of militarised borders and, increasingly, the criminalisation of migration and the erosion of basic human rights of migrants,2 including the UN Refugee Conventions in the case of refugees.3 Government support for BIC companies as part of global export- led growth strategies for the defence, security software and hardware industries4 and other influence channels show the extent to which these companies benefit from close government relations. The ability to influence government policy on migrant detention and the use of mass surveillance technology at borders speaks to the lobbying power of companies and trade associations across BIC industries.
    [Show full text]
  • ESG Annual Report 2019 FINAL
    Attachment – 2 BOARD OF INVESTMENT TRUSTEES BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEMORANDUM November 20, 2019 TO: Board of Investment Trustees and Board of Trustees FROM: Linda Herman, Executive Director SUBJECT: Environmental, Social, Governance – Required Annual Update – 2019 As detailed in the Board’s Governance Manual, the Boards are required to annually provide a comprehensive report describing the implementation and outcomes of the Board’s ESG policy, including recommendations for updates or revisions to this policy, as part of the year-end reporting process. This report includes the following: I. Industry Developments II. Current Manager ESG Updates and Corporate Engagement III. Consultant Initiatives IV. Recent Board Actions V. Staff Research I. Industry Developments CalPERS – Citing lost earnings from prior divestment activities, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) is seeking to end the divestment from tobacco companies that has been in place since 2001. Tobacco divestment has cost the plan $3.6 billion in lost earnings since it was enacted. Additionally, the plan rejected calls to divest from two private prison companies, GEO Group and CoreCivic. CalSTRS – In a move that is counter to the CalPERS decision, CalSTRS announced that they will restrict any future investment in private prison companies. The companies included from this restriction are CoreCivic, Geo Group, G4S, Serco, and Sodexo. These holdings currently comprise $12.1 million of the CalSTRS portfolio, which represents .005% of the portfolio. Norway Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) – Norway recently announced that their sovereign wealth fund, the GPFG, will be divesting from some fossil fuel investments in their portfolio. However, the fund will not be divesting from major integrated energy companies such as ExxonMobil, Total, Petrobras, BP, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and Chevron as these companies maintain renewable energy divisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission 24
    Better Corrections ... Safer Communities The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd. 18 April2018 Level 18 44 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000 PO Box Q 134 QVB Post Shop Sydney NSW 1230 Phone: +61 2 9262 6100 Fax: +61 2 9262 6005 www.geogroup.com.au Mr A J MacSporran QC Chairperson Crimes and Corruptions Commission North Tower Green Square 515 St Pauls Terrace Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 Dear Mr MacSporran Re: Taskforce Flaxton- Invitation to make a written submission on corruption risks in Queensland corrective service facilities Thank you for your letter dated 27 March 2018 and the advice that the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) has commenced Taskforce Flaxton to examine corruption risks in Queensland Corrective Services facilities. As invited by the CCC, The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (GEO), as the Operator of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre under contract to Queensland Corrective Services, is pleased to provide the attached submission to help inform the work of Taskforce Flaxton. I am grateful to you for granting GEO three extra working days to complete the submission. As is customary, we have copied the Commissioner, Queensland Corrective Services, into this correspondence Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require further particulars related to this submission. Yours sincerely Attach cc Peter Martin APM PhD, Commissioner, Queensland Corrective Services Troy Ittensohn, General Manager, Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre ~SaletyCeruf\ed EnworvnentaJiyCerttlied~ ~O.mlityCerli!ied AS4801:2001 15014001:2004 1509001.2008 ABN 24 051
    [Show full text]
  • Public Policy and Private Prisons
    Public Policy and Private Prisons: A probe into legislation that populates private prisons with immigrants by Joseph Miles Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Criminal Justice Program YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY December, 2014 Public Policy and Private Prisons: A probe into legislation that populates private prisons with immigrants Joseph Miles I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand that this thesis will be made available from the OhioLINK ETD Center and the Maag Library Circulation Desk for public access. I also authorize the University or other individuals to make copies of this thesis as needed for scholarly research. Signature: Joseph Miles, Student Date Approvals: John Hazy, Thesis Advisor Date Christopher Bellas, Committee Member Date Robert Wardle, Committee Member Date Dr. Salvatore A. Sanders, Associate Dean of Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT States have become increasingly active in proposing, enacting, and enforcing immigration policies, challenging division of power with the federal government. Certain southern border states have taken the lead in implementing anti-immigration legislation and policies while for-profit, private prisons have increased their presence. The main hypothesis of this thesis is that states that have the most severe anti-immigration policies will have more private prisons than states that do not. Using information from a sample of 27 states, a severity index scale is created to gauge immigration policy activity in relationship to private prison data. The results indicate that there is a positive correlation between the severity of immigration legislation and a private prison presence (i.e. states that have more severe immigration policies have more private prison beds per capita than those states with less severe immigration policies).
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendation Regarding Investment in Private, For-Profit Prison Corporations
    Recommendation regarding investment in private, for-profit prison corporations Prepared by Rosina Curren1 & Randall Curren2 on behalf of the University of Rochester Ethical Investment Advisory Committee (EIAC) Revised3 and adopted by the EIAC March 6, 2020 Summary The Ethical Investment Advisory Committee recommends that the University of Rochester Investment Committee adopt a policy of making no direct investments in any publicly-traded company that owns or operates private prisons, including CoreCivic and its subsidiaries, GEO Group, and G4S. Additionally, the Investment Office will notify the EIAC of any private prison equity holding that may appear in the portfolio, and it will notify its investment managers of this policy. In the context of privatization of government services, the private, for-profit incarceration of prisoners and immigrant detainees stands out as unique in the hazard it presents to the protection of fundamental liberties. Fair and impartial public adjudication of the grounds for depriving individuals of such rights and liberties is a fundamental due process right, and adequate public oversight to ensure that conditions of incarceration are consistent with Constitutional standards of humane treatment is similarly a solemn public trust. The introduction of private for-profit interests has undermined public oversight of prison conditions, created dangerous and inhumane conditions through cost cutting, and diminished the role of public authorities in determining what is most just and consistent with the public interest. The impartial justice owed the accused is less likely to be secured when profits are at stake, and in the absence of far greater transparency, there is no assurance that the public’s legal and human rights obligations to a vulnerable captive population are being met.
    [Show full text]
  • Wells Fargo: One of the Private Prison Industry’S Most Dedicated Lenders
    Wells Fargo: One of the private prison industry’s most dedicated lenders Fact Sheet · In the Public Interest · December 2016 rivate prison companies hold contracts to operate hundreds of prisons, jails, and Pimmigration detention centers across the country. By profiting off of incarceration, private prison companies have a perverse incentive to make business decisions that lead to more people behind bars. Private prisons also are rife with human rights abuses, pay correctional officers less than they are paid at publicly managed prisons, and foster envi- ronments unconducive to prisoner rehabilitation. The two private prison industry leaders, CCA1 and GEO Group, depend on debt financ- ing to conduct their day-to-day business operations and acquire smaller companies. An analysis of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings over the past 10 years, which is detailed in In the Public Interest’s report “The Banks That Finance Private Prison Companies,” shows that Wells Fargo has played a leading role in financing these debts.2 In doing so, Wells Fargo is complicit with private prison companies in contributing to and enabling mass incarceration and the criminalization of immigration. Additionally, by col- lecting interest and fees on outstanding debt, the banks are complicit with CCA and GEO Group in profiting from mass incarceration and the criminalization of immigration. The table below outlines Wells Fargo’s involvement in financing CCA’s and GEO Group’s debts. The preceding bulleted list provides key findings from the table. The terms in the list and table are defined in the glossary following the table. Summary of Wells Fargo’s current involvement in CCA’s and GEO Group’s debts (through debt agreements that were active as of June 2016) • Wells Fargo has extended to CCA a $132.5 million line of revolving credit, of which CCA has borrowed $65.4 million.
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT STATE of NEW MEXICO COUNTY of SANTA FE Human Rights Defense Center, Plaintif.T V. the GEO Group, I
    FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF SANTA FE HumanRights DefenseCenter, Plaintif.t v. Cause No. --------- The GEO Group, Inc., The New MexicoCorrections Department, BrianFitzgerald, in his official capacity as records custodian for the New MexicoCorrections Department,and DOES I through2, in their official capacities. Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORD S, FOR MANDAMUS, DAMAGES, AND DECLARATORYAN D INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. The Human Rights DefenseCenter (" HRDC ") brings these causes ofaction to enforce the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12 ("IPRA"). I. INTRODUCTION 2. Public transparency is a key part ofthe foundationof a strong democracy. 3. HRDC, a nonprofitjournalism and advocacy organization, brings this action under IPRA to compel production ofrecords maintained or controlled by the GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO") 1 and the New Mexico Corrections Department ("NMCD"), and forinjunctive relief and damages arising fromthe willfulfailure and refusalto produce public records as required by law. II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 4. HRDC is a nonprofit organization, incorporated in the state of Washington and with headquarters in Lake Worth Beach, Florida. It is a "person" as definedby IPRA. 5. GEO is a Florida-based, private for-profitcorporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida which operates jails, prisons, immigration detention centers, and juvenile detention centers in countries across the world. GEO currently operates the Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs, New Mexico and the Guadalupe County Correctional Facility in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. GEO previously operated the Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility in Clayton, New Mexico.1 The NMCD contracted with GEO to house prisoners at the Lea County Correctional Facility, the Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility, and the Guadalupe County Correctional Facility.
    [Show full text]