Maintaining the Prison-Industrial Complex: Private Actors and Power a Multi-Dimensional Power Analysis of Corecivic and the GEO Group

Home , CoreCivic, GEO Group, Industrial complex

Bachelor Thesis in Peace and Development Studies

Maintaining the Prison-Industrial Complex: Private Actors and Power A Multi-Dimensional Power Analysis of CoreCivic and The GEO Group

Author: Linnéa Sturmhoefel Warnberg Supervisor: Manuela Nilsson Examiner: Christopher High Term: Autumn 2020 Subject: Peace and Development Studies

Level: Undergraduate

Course code: 2FU33E

[This page intentionally left blank]

Abstract Several scholars have studied the Prison-Industrial Complex (PIC) since the late 1990s. However, there is a lack of research on how private actors profiting from the PIC, such as private prisons, are maintaining and sustaining it. This study explores how private prisons utilise different forms of power to maintain the PIC by shedding light on which real, structural, and soft powers CoreCivic and The GEO Group (the two largest private prison companies in America) are utilising to sustain the PIC. This will be done by analysing CoreCivic and The GEO group through the lens of Steven Lukes’ framework - Three Dimensions of Power. The study has been conducted as a qualitative desk and case study following abductive reasoning. The data have been analysed employing both text and discourse analysis. While the companies unquestionably use structural power, primarily through lobbying, to maintain and sustain the PIC, it can only be suggested how they have employed real and soft power. The companies use real power mainly to ensure high-profit margins. It can thus, be suggested that the companies are indirectly maintaining the PIC by simply ensuring continued profitability. Finally, the study suggests how the companies are employing soft power to upkeep the PIC. By portraying themselves to the American society in a more positive way, contradictory to how they operate, the companies ensure continued support by society, which is vital for their continued existence.

Keywords Prison-Industrial Complex, Power, Private Prisons, CoreCivic, The GEO Group

Acknowledgements I want to thank Manuela Nilsson for the valuable guidance, feedback, and remarks she has given to me throughout the process of conducting the thesis.

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 1

2 Previous Research ...... 7 3 Analytical Framework ...... 10

3.2.1 Three Dimensions of Power in This Research ...... 14 4 Methodological Framework ...... 15

5 Findings ...... 24

5.1.1 Services...... 26 5.1.2 Finance and Business ...... 27 5.1.3 Strengths ...... 28 5.1.1 Future Development ...... 29 5.1.1 Business Associated Risks ...... 29

5.2.1 Lobbying and Political Contribution: CoreCivic and The GEO Groups’ Statements ...... 31 5.2.2 Lobbying: External Actors ...... 32 5.2.3 Political Contributions: External Actors ...... 34 5.2.4 Political Contributions: Candidate Investigation ...... 34 5.2.5 Political Network ...... 35

5.3.1 Perception of Crime and Immigration in America ...... 36 5.3.2 CoreCivic and The GEO Group: Discourse ...... 37

6 Analysis ...... 45

6.1.1 The First Dimension – Real Power ...... 45 6.1.2 The Second Dimension – Structural Power ...... 46 6.1.3 The Third Dimension – Soft Power ...... 49 7 Conclusion ...... 52 8 References ...... 54

Appendices

Appendix 1: OnTheIssue - Questions and Answers Appendix 2: Results from the Political Contribution Investigation

iii

List of Abbreviations

ALEC America Legislative Exchange Council BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons CCA Correction Corporation of America ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement PIC Prison Industrial Complex PRV Power a Radical View

QAR Quality Assessment Report REIT Real Estate Investment Trusts USMS U.S. Marshals Service

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Change in Violent Crime, Property Crime, Inmate Population and Total Population in the USA, from 1960-2008 per 100,000 of population.

1 Introduction

Introduction and Research Problem In the modern Western world, a longstanding belief has been that society can be looked at as a social contract. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean- Jacques Rousseau are the most prominent philosophers when discussing this phenomenon (Malnes, Midgaard & Torhell 2006). They essentially explain how citizens agree to give up some freedoms and follow the contract and in return, reap the benefits of what society offers (e.g., education, welfare, and security) and contain social conflict. What the contracts entail, and the consequences of breaking the contracts differ between states, one common punishment is to serve your sentence in prison. In its essence, the contract shapes the society we live in and can be likened with our rules, laws, and corrections. How much power and say a state should have in the social contracts differ between ideologies, from being a “nanny-state” to a “night- watchmen state”. However, a consensus that states are to make our laws, operate the judiciary, the police and the defence is identifiable (Malnes, Midgaard & Torhell 2006). According to the traditional Weberian school of thought, the state is also the only legitimate actor to execute a states’ laws and correction (Weber 1968). However, the neo-liberal model has stretched the consensus that states are the only legitimate actor to perform sentences for breaking the contract. In several countries, private companies, alongside the state, are controlling prison facilities. The most considerable difference between private and public prisons is that private prisons are run like businesses generating profit, while public prisons are not. Several concerns have been raised regarding what consequences private prisons as actors have had and will have on the correction process, especially regarding profit.

One person who was highly concerned and recognised this problem was Angela Davis (1998). Based on her concern Davis (1998) coined the concept the Prison-Industrial Complex (PIC) in 1998. The PIC emphasises the self-

evident part of how the neo-liberal model, which is based on generating economic growth and profit, and prisons' purpose, are contradictory. Among others, Davis (1998) explains how the increase in the prison population is not necessarily corresponding to crime levels. Instead, companies and actors who profit from prisons have contributed to mass incarceration, by pushing for laws and policies, making it easier to arrest and convict, mainly targeting minorities. She compares the PIC to convict-leasing and claims it to be modern-day slavery, as the companies profit from holding people. Davis uses America as an example when she explains the PIC.

America is home to 5% of the world population and 25% of the world prisoners. The prison population in America has increased by approximately 800% from 1980 with a total population growth of only about 44% (Goodwin 2019); still, crime rates have proportionally decreased or stagnated (FBI 2020). America, like many countries in the world, operates through the neo-liberal capitalist model. America's GDP growth is around 2-3% per year (The World Bank 2020), an ideal economic growth rate for America (Amadeo 2020). Following the ideal economic growth rate, private companies, including prisons, should experience 2-3% growth annually. Private prisons' service is to provide everything a convict will need during the incarceration process, which means fewer convicts lead to less profit, as this is a simple question of supply and demand. Thus, there is a clear correlation between profit and prison sentences, which has been the primary concern raised regarding private prisons, as explained by Davis (1998, 2003).

A substantial amount of research has focused on the PIC and its broader implications. The PIC has frequently been studied from a racial perspective where the War On Drugs has been at its core (Alexander 2012; Azikiwe 2018; Cao 2018; Davis, 1998, 2003; Fornili 2018; Goodwin 2019). More recently, research has focused on how immigration is a new contributor for the PIC (Massey 2019; Moreno 2018; Tosh 2020). However, little attention has

focused on how actors contributing to, and profiting from the PIC, have ensured the PIC’s continued existence. Thus, the focus has been on how the PIC was fashioned rather than how it is maintained. Additionally, Arabella Advisor (2018) stated that future research must focus on the PIC’s actors to stop the exploitation involved. There is a lack of in-depth investigations into how these powerful actors operate. Private prisons are the main contributors and profiteers of the PIC. Amongst them are two companies, CoreCivic and The GEO Group. In 2019, CoreCivic (2020c) made a profit of around $558 million, and The GEO Group (2020b) of $655 million and are therefore of significance to investigate.

Relevance The PIC has raised several concerns regarding the neo-liberal model of privatisation, profit, and prisons. This study is relevant as it attempts to caution countries following America’s footsteps (e.g., the United Kingdom), to illustrate what consequences may come from involving private actors in the correctional system. The study will analyse how private actors can utilise power to infiltrate the social contract and shape society. As mentioned, Arabella Advisor (2018) highlighted the lack of research on the actors contributing to the PIC, and how research is vital to end the PIC. This research will partly fill this gap by studying private prisons, one of the main actors in the PIC. Finally, to ensure an equal and sustainable future for all, the United Nations developed 17 sustainable development goals through Agenda 2030 (United Nations 2020). Within the PIC, several violations against the goals can be recognised, especially goal 16 (Peace Justice and Strong Institutions); since the PIC highlights how private actors lobby for new crime laws targeting minorities to increase incarceration levels (Davis 2003). If the intention is to meet the goals, the actors exploiting people through the PIC must be stopped. Therefore, the research will be of interest to understand private prisons' real and said intentions, how they operate, what consequences private

actors may have on society, and the PIC overall. The study will also be for scholars who wish to conduct further research on topics in line with the PIC and its broader implications.

Private prisons make up approximately 8.5% of prisons in America (Mamun et al. 2020), and thus are a small part of the prison system and equally a small part of the PIC. State operated prisons may only have a fraction of their services outsourced to private companies, who are profiting from and contributing to the PIC (e.g. communications or food services), whereas private prisons are entirely privately operted. Private prisons are of relevance to analyse merely on their visibility, size, and their fully privatised nature. Ergo, CoreCivic and The GEO Group are excellent cases to examine because they most clearly demonstrate the dynamics of the private sector’s involvement in the prison system and the PIC.

Objective and Research Questions

The objective of this study is to shed light on the various ways private prisons as actors utilise different forms of power to maintain the PIC. This will be done by investigating what real, structural and soft powers, America's largest private prison companies, CoreCivic and The GEO Group use, abductively applying Steven Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power framework. The following research questions have been identified.

1. How do CoreCivic and The GEO Group operate?

2. How do CoreCivic and The GEO Group present themselves to the American public?

3. How do external actors evaluate CoreCivic’s and The GEO Group’s work?

Disposition This study consists of seven chapters, including the introduction chapter. Following the introduction, chapter two will present previous literature on the PIC. The literature review will additionally outline where research has been lacking, as indicated in the research problem. Chapter three is dedicated to the analytical frameworks endorsed in this study, and this chapter is divided into two sections, the conceptual framework, and the theoretical framework. The conceptual framework is the PIC as it is the core element of this study. Based on the objective's incentives, the carefully selected theoretical framework is Steven Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power (Lukes 2005). With his theory, Lukes theorise how power can be executed in our societies. He goes beyond the traditional view of simply seeing power as an evident action where the conflict of interest is visible and apparent (often called real power). Lukes explains how power can both be executed in this traditional sense and how power can be executed by shaping the structures of society (structural power) and influencing the citizens very wants (soft power). By applying Lukes’ theoretical framework to this study, a clear view of how CoreCivic and The GEO Group have utilised power to maintain the PIC will appear thus validating for the choice to employ the theory.

Moreover, to increase the study's reliability, chapter four will outline the methodological framework chosen to achieve the objective. To unveil the variants of power private prisons’ execute to maintain the PIC, a qualitative case study, based on primary and secondary sources has been conducted. The data are analysed using both text and discourse analysis to extract valuable data from written text and analyse what CoreCivic and The GEO Group actually say, and then subsequently uncover how they want the public to perceive them. Moreover, in the investigation, a random number generator was used to select samples, to exclude human bias, and ensure validity and

representativeness. The study is executed through abductive reasoning, as the theory works as a lens through which the findings are analysed.

Chapter five contains the finding retrieved in this study following the methodological framework and will answer the research questions. Chapter six analyses the findings by applying Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power. The final chapter is a concluding chapter, where an overview of the research is given together with final thoughts and suggestions for further research.

2 Previous Research A clear negative and critical outlook can be distinguished through the extensive research published on the PIC (e.g., see Craig & Cummings, 2020; Davis, 1998). Studies question private prisons' incentives, stressing they are no longer a place for reconciliation and justice. Instead, private prisons' political economy and their profit-driven motives, embedded in the neo-liberal capitalist model, are emphasised (Goodwin 2019; Mumford et al. 2016; Wright 2007). A recent study by Galinato and Rohla (2020) highlights how private prison per capita bed system (where private prions receive government funding for every inmate in their custody) increases new incarceration levels and the sentencing length. Their study additionally highlights how private prisons increase guilty verdicts on drug, weapon, regulatory and fraud crimes.

The PIC is often researched through the lens of racism and modern-day slavery, made possible through the loophole in the 13th amendment1 driven by the War on Drugs (Alexander, 2012; Azikiwe 2018; Cao 2018; Davis 2003; Fornili; 2018; Goodwin, 2019). The same literature highlights how minorities, particularly African Americans, have been targeted and have contributed to their already deceitful image of being criminals and dangerous. An ex- government official has even stated that the War on Drugs is false, solely put in place to target “blacks and anti-war left” (Baus 2016). Angela Davis, one of the main contributors to the field, has in her book Are Prisons Obsolete? identified a clear relationship between the PIC and convict-leasing (Davis 2003). Research also reveals how many of the convicts are held in prison facilities wrongfully (Bailey 2020).

1 The 13th amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" (National Archives 2019) thus generating a loophole where criminals can be forced to work.

Newer contributions have focused on the PIC and immigration. As marijuana is gradually decriminalised and legalised, it has been argued that the War on Drugs has slowly decreased, but instead, the War on Immigrants has increased (Massey 2019; Moreno 2018). Scholars covering this topic have shown how immigrants are portrayed as criminals and a security threats and how private prisons are profiting from immigration through immigration detention centres (Moreno 2018; Tosh 2020).

Published research supporting the PIC is virtually non-existent or very old. Supporters of private prisons have argued in line with neo-liberalism that privatisation creates competition, which improves quality (Moore 1999). Additionally, Feeley (2002) argues that privatisation of correction systems has increased social control and has led to new and improved innovative solutions for the correctional process (e.g., electronic monitoring surveillance). However, he still emphasises the negative consequences profit has on the process.

Most research on the PIC focuses on America; however, there is research focusing on other countries. Michele Jarldorn (2019) researches the PIC in Australia, where she stresses how social workers are victims of the PIC as they are made to believe they can make a difference. Still, they are contributing to the PIC, by merely working for the companies. Another example is Ronit Lentin (2020), she explains Ireland's version of the PIC. Lentin (2020) emphasises how private for-profit operators make large amounts of money on asylum seekers, and she supports Angela Davis, saying that all private prisons activities should be abolished.

Finally, it has been shown that it is of vital importance to start movements against the PIC and conduct further research opposing the companies and actors benefitting from the PIC, subsequently ending modern-day slavery (Anderson-Zavala et al. 2017; Arabella Advisor 2018; Galinato & Rohla 2020).

Most of the published literature surrounding this topic has questioned private prisons' real incentives but failed to analyse how precise and specific actors maintain and sustain the PIC. To my knowledge, how private actors execute various forms of power to validate their existence and maintain the PIC, has not yet been analysed. There is a lack of accountability in the PIC, and without such investigations, the exploitation through the PIC will continue without such emphasis on accountability.

3 Analytical Framework In this chapter, the conceptual and theoretical frameworks will be presented, first, by clarifying the conceptual framework—The Prison Industrial Complex. Secondly, by explaining the ideas behind the analytical framework used in this research, Steven Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power, and how the theory has been adjusted in this research.

The Prison-Industrial Complex According to the traditional Weberian school of thought, the state is the only legitimate actor to execute laws and corrections (Weber 1968). However, in many countries, this is no longer the case. In certain countries (e.g., The United Kingdom, America, and Australia), private actors contracted by their governments provide services to execute the incarceration process (Davis 1998). The private companies’ services can vary from telephone services, jobs for prisoners, food, and meal resources to providing entire private prison facilities (Davis 1998). At large, private companies follow the neo-liberal capitalist model, which follows the principle of constant economic growth; thus, private companies work for profit and are profit driven. Due to their profit-driven motives, the existence of private companies within the correction system has, to a large extent, been questioned (Davis 1998).

The former political prisoner, activist, educator and author, Angela Davis, first coined the concept PIC in her 1998 article Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex (Davis 1998). The name PIC is derived from the Military-Industrial Complex as the ideas behind the two concepts are uncanny. Both concepts are grounded in the belief that outsourcing state institutions to private actors generate severe consequences (such as armed-conflict and inhuman treatment) on profit bias. The PIC seeks to explain the relationship between the rapid increase in the prison population in America, since the outsourcing of government contracts to the private sector, and the incentives of capitalism. And the PIC clarifies how the increase in the prison population

is not necessarily corresponding to crime levels (see Figure 3.1). Davis (1998) argues imprisonment is a way of making problems such as homelessness, addiction, and unemployment disappear from the public eye, by favourably masking these matters as crimes, rather than public health. However, the issues, often related to poverty, are not disappearing, people are. The PIC emphasises how companies and actors who profit from prisons contribute to mass incarceration (e.g., see Alexander 2012; Davis 1998, 2003). The companies and actors are pushing and lobbying for laws and policies, making it easier to arrest and convict, mainly targeting vulnerable minorities (Alexander 2012), as Davis (1998) argued. Scholars explain how there is a clear correlation between the War on Drugs and the PIC in America and how especially African Americans are targeted (Alexander 2012). In prisons, convicts might work for for-profit companies; therefore, the PIC is often compared to convict-leasing and modern-day slavery (Alexander 2012; Davis 2003).

Figure 3.1

Inmatesper 100,000of population

Figure 3.1 shows the change in Violent Crime, Property Crime, Inmate Population and Total Population in the USA from 1960-2008, per 100.000 of population. Source: Schmitt, Warner and Gupta (2010) Retrieved from the Centre for Economic and Policy Research.

Three Dimensions of Power The question of what power is and what it entails has been discussed by numerous scholars for centuries (e.g., Aristotle 1981; Foucault see Rabinow, Faubion, & Hurley 2000; Hobbes 2018; Weber 1968). One of the prominent scholars who has contributed to the topic is Steven Lukes. In his book, Power A Radical View (PRV), Lukes (2005) presents three dimensions of power to explain how power can be viewed and understood in our societies.

The first dimension, The One-Dimensional View, is grounded in Dahl's arguments amongst others (Lukes 2005). In his book, ‘The Concept of Power’, Dahl defines power as:

Something like this: A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do (Dahl 1957 see Lukes 2005:16).

Therefore, the first dimension focuses on A’s actual or real power over B and is a form of observable behavioural power. Meaning it is visible, and the conflict of interest between each party is apparent. This power is best measured in the decision-making processes, the party who has more “wins'' has more power in social life (Lukes 2005). Bachrach and Baratz (1970, see Lukes 2005) present a critique regarding the first dimension, claiming it is too narrow and focuses too much on behaviour and asks, who chooses what is on the “list” decisions are based on in the first place. From this standpoint, Bachrach and Baratz (1970, see Lukes 2005) discuss further and claim it necessary to incorporate a second face if one wants to understand and define the concept of power, leading to the second dimension.

The second dimension, The Two-Dimensional View, expands on the critique of the one-dimensional view. In PRV, it is argued that power can be executed through both decision-making and non-decision making (Lukes 2005). According to Bachrach and Baratz (1970, see Lukes 2005), the second dimension of power can be identified, such as:

Power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented, for all practical purposes, from bringing to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s set of preferences (Bachrach & Baratz 1970, see Lukes 2005:20). Here, A ensures B's compliance, therefore, the power is the choice to decide or not to decide, an example of non-decision-making power could then be the power to set the agenda (Lukes 2005). Thus, the second dimension of power can be acknowledged as structural power.

The final dimension, The Third-Dimensional View, goes beyond both the first and second dimension. In PRV, Lukes (2005) critiques the focus on behaviourism, stating power does not solely need to be associated with an observable conflict. Concerning this, he says:

A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very want (Lukes 2005:27).

Lukes’ thoughts can be likened to the work of Gramsci and his theory of hegemony. Gramsci's theory of hegemony essentially declares how the elite (here A), the person who contains power, projects their ideology and beliefs onto the lower class (here B) until, the lower class accepts it as their own belief or even finds it desirable (Nowell-Smith, & Hoare 1971). Hence, power over the mind or soft power.

Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power is a commonly used theoretical framework in research (e.g., Haugaard 2020; Klimašauskaitė & Tal; Mulinari & Vilhelmsson 2019; Rynolds 2019). Lucy Rynolds (2019) applies Lukes’ model to the study of corruption to the health system. She explains how the suppression of public debate may lead to a skewed portrayal of the public’s

real interest. Consequently, misdirecting what researchers, aiming to develop and better the health system, should focus their research on. Another example is a study of how power relation impacts coastal management in Eilat and Aqaba by Klimašauskaitė and Tal (2020). They explore how power is employed amongst its stakeholders, who have the power in the decision- making process, and its consequences.

3.2.1 Three Dimensions of Power in This Research

Based on this research's objective, a theory that seeks to understand what power is used for and how it is used is of relevance. Lukes’ (2005) theory, Three Dimensions of Power, works as a tool to help identify who has power and how it is used—thus justifying applying the theory in this research. This research will utilise Lukes’ concepts of power by applying, analysing, and identifying the real, structural and soft power CoreCivic and The GEO Group have. To subsequently see how the companies operationalise the three dimensions of power to maintain and upkeep the PIC.

4 Methodological Framework In this chapter, the methodological framework used to conduct the study will be explained and justified. The first part of the chapter is dedicated to the choice to conduct a qualitative desk study. Next are the two sections on the use of the case study and abductive reasoning. The chapter continues to explain the methods engaged in analysing the data, and how the investigation was conducted on politicians receiving financial support from CoreCivic and The GEO Group. To continue with a section on sources and validity and end with a part on limitations and delimitation.

Qualitative Desk Study

Qualitative research is a standard research method used in the social sciences. Qualitative methods, like quantitative methods, are concerned with the relationship between research and theory. However, qualitative research is the study of words rather than numbers (Bryman 2016). Therefore, qualitative research is more commonly used in inductive or abductive approaches; and often takes a constructivist ontological standpoint with an interpretivism epistemological orientation (Bryman 2016). The use of text as data is one of the recurrent methods in qualitative research; additionally, this method tends to ask open-ended questions (Bryman 2016; Creswell 2018).

There are two main ways of conducting research, either you can use primary research which aims at collecting new data, or secondary research which relies on reviewing already published data, also known as a desk study. Research using predominantly secondary sources of information allows the analysis of a broad spectrum of sources, resulting in more representative findings, assuming data is obtainable in large amounts (Johnston 2017). It also allows more time to analyse findings and enables the researcher to get access to actors and individuals otherwise not accessible; it additionally makes the sources disposable at any time (Creswell 2018; Johnston 2017). Based on the

research's objective, and the substantial amount of literature available, the informed decision to conduct a qualitative desk study was taken.

Case Study

A case study is a scientific method aiming to conduct an in-depth investigation of a specific phenomenon (George & Bennet 2005). Case studies exist either as single or multiple case studies and are used for different purposes. A single case study is of an advantage when you want to investigate a person or a country. However, if you conduct a comparative analysis or look at similarities and differences within or between sectors, or understand causality, a multiple approach is advantageous. Case studies cannot be generalised, but it is possible to conduct a case study in such a way that it becomes representative for a specific object, e.g., media and communities. These types of case studies are often called typical case studies (Bryman 2016:62).

One of the most common critiques regarding case studies is that researchers are biased when selecting their cases (George & Bennet 2005). Although this can become problematic, the bias is not as severe as in statistical analysis. Bias in statistical research heavily skews the result and weakens the research, which does not have to be the case in qualitative case studies. In case studies, the selection of cases is an essential part of the study, and researchers intentionally choose cases on the bias of their objective. In fact, Creswell (2018) and George and Bennet (2005) state that the single most crucial factor to consider when choosing your case, or cases, is the case's relevance to your said objective.

This research aims to shed light on the various ways private prisons as actors utilise different forms of power; therefore, this study will be conducted as a typical case study using multiple cases. This method allows for an in-depth investigation of private prison companies. A multiple approach will further investigate similarities within the cases generating a more representative analysis of private prisons as actors overall. The cases analysed are CoreCivic

and The GEO Group. The cases were strategically chosen for this study on the bias of similarity (Bryman 2016:68) and because they represent the two largest private prisons operators in America. The cases will thus exemplify and generate a more general view (Bryman 2016), and the size of the companies was favourable when accessing data. Ergo, the cases helped to understand and achieve the objective set out which, according to Creswell (2018) and George and Bennet (2005), is the main factor to consider when choosing which cases to carry out your research.

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning is a type of logical inference built upon one or several observations and seeks to explain those observations' meaning (Bryman 2016). Abductive reasoning is of interest if you want to understand how individual events and discourses may, be part of, and influence a more general and universal context or structure. Unlike a deductive approach, which starts with a theory or an inductive approach, which is theory building, abduction uses theory as a lens to understand and analyse society. Abductive reasoning produces a credible conclusion but does not truly validate it, thus abductive reason is more expressed in terms such as “most likely” or “best available” (Bryman 2016; Danermark et al. 2002).

This research follows abductive reasoning as it employed Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power only as a tool to view and analyse reality. The choice to work abductively was motivated by the work of Danermark et al. (2002). Danermark et al. (2002) present three core guidelines to consider when determining if abductive reasoning is applicable to research. Danermark et al. (2002:90) state: “[…] that we (1) have an empirical event/phenomenon (the result), which we (2) relate to a rule, which (3) leads to a new supposition about the event/phenomenon”. They further explain how in social science, the rule more common than not, can be a theory and how the new supposition is a

new interpretation of the exact phenomenon. In this research, all three core guidelines can be identified and verified: (1) the phenomenon studied is private prisons, which we (2) analyse through the lens of Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power, which (3) leads to a new interpretation of private prisons.

Text Analysis Text analysis is commonly used in social research and is a process of analysing texts in various forms. Text analysis is utilised to convert large amounts of written and published information into qualitative data. Thus, text analysis aims to extract meaningful information from various articles, documents, and research (Bryman 2016).

To fully understand how private prisons function it is of importance to investigate how they operate, financially, politically, and socially. The best way to find this information is to combine written information from different sources to uncover the most likely answer. In this study, this was done using text analysis. The method was applied by reading financial, political, and structural statements from CoreCivic and The GEO Group. Consequently, this enabled a better understanding of the companies’ objectives and strategies, which is a vital part of this study. Besides, secondary literature on relevant topics in line with the research objective were investigated using text analysis, which generated a broader understanding of the matter.

Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis is a well-known method for studying the written and spoken language in social sciences (Dijk 2016). The analysis of texts exists beyond the study of only words and sentences. Authors can purposely create ideas and use language to produce a specific substance, a discourse, within texts. For example, authors might use particular words as strategies to convince an audience of ideas on particular issues, resulting in increased social power on the matter. When a researcher wants to analyse the meaning of the

text beyond words, discourse analysis is relevant. Discourse analysis comprehends both textual and non-textual meanings. Thus, discourse analysis aims to study the implications and the ideas behind and beyond text (Dijk 2016).

In Lukes’ third dimension of power, the analysis of soft power is of the essence. A critical stance to the third dimension is how actors of power influence the audience’s ideological views and beliefs to accommodate their own (Lukes 2005). When investigating such matters, it is essential to determine how the actors of power frame issues and portray themselves and how this may affect their audience. Hence, what is actually said and what the actual meaning and ideas behind the actors are, is relevant to analyse. Based on Lukes’ third dimension of power, and the incentives of discourse analysis, the advantages of using this method of analysis become evident. Therefore, discourse analysis was utilised to investigate CoreCivic's and The GEO Group's discourses on their websites, to demonstrate how they portrayed themselves and their work to the public.

Investigation To further comprehend how CoreCivic and The GEO Group operate, this study will examine how they spend their political contributions. Therefore, this author conducted an investigation on the political contributions made by the companies, based on the information obtainable on OnTheIssue. The investigation examined which politicians the companies financially support, if they are Democrats or Republicans and what the politicians’ views are on issues related to the PIC, namely crime, immigration, and drugs. OnTheIssue (2020), is a non-partisan information website aimed at helping voters find the right candidate whom to vote for, by providing an insight to politicians view on issues rather than personality and popularity. OnTheIssue updates their information each day and gathers data from daily newspapers, speeches, press

releases and the internet. OnTheIssue (2020) methods for collecting data can be more linked with qualitative interviews than quantitative surveys.

Mason (2010 see Bryman 2016) investigated how large the average interview sample size was in 560 qualitative based doctoral theses in Great Britain. The result conveyed a mean of 31 people and a median of 28 people, justifying and determining my sample size of fifteen politicians from each company across a five-year span (three per year between 2016-2020). When choosing whom to investigate random generator was used to exclude human bias and ensure the sample's validity and representativeness (Bryman 2016). For CoreCivic it was decided whom to examine by looking at the company’s year-end lobbying report (retrieved from Disclosurespreview.house.gov 2020), where CoreCivic political candidate contributions are reported. Then a random number generator was used to determine which three politicians to use as the sample. The action was repeated for every year investigated. The same method was essentially applied for The GEO Group to determine the sample. The GEO Group reports their political contributions through the Federal Election Commission (2020) (in the form of PAC and party commitments reports), monthly instead of annually. Therefore, a random number generator was first used to determine the month, and then again to select which three candidates to investigate. The same method was applied across the five years investigated.

The results consist of the contribution amount (in USD) donated by the companies, which political party the politicians support, and the politicians stand on the issues of crime, immigration, and drugs (Presented on a four-part scale from strongly oppose or oppose to support too strongly support) as presented on OnTheIssue (2020). The complete results can be found in the Appendix together with a detailed description of what OnTheIssues’ questions and answers entail.

Sources and Validity To ensure the validity of qualitative research, Creswell (2018) suggest implementing data from several sources. To ensure validity in this study, extensive literature, both from primary and secondary sources, has been retrieved and reviewed.

This study's primary sources are the two private prisons' website, namely CoreCivic and The GEO Group. The purpose of using the companies’ websites as sources is to display how the companies depict themselves and, how they describe their work. To portray a more nuanced view of how the companies work and operate, and to ensure validity, several other sources have been examined, such as peer-review articles.

In this study, several articles from various journals have been incorporated to comprehend how external actors view and evaluate private prisons work. Peer- reviewed journal articles are already checked for validity and reliability and are thus credible sources. A few books have been read on the PIC's topic to supplement the peer-reviewed articles and to broaden the research point of view, thus ensuring validity. Several news articles and online publications in line with the objective, both by government and organisation have been incorporated into the study to generate an even broader view. The study has tried to convey similarities amongst published articles, books, and news articles by combining several different sources by various actors. But most importantly, the study demonstrated the difference between the private prisons’ material in contrast to external actors’ perceptions of the companies’ work.

One critical consequence of comprehending online sources in the form of news articles and information provided by organisations, in line with the PIC, is that the information provided may be commercialised, biased and advocate against private prisons. However, as shown in chapter two, close to all published research covering the topic similarly have a critical outlook on the private-

public relationship, increasing both reliability and validity for the online sources.

OnTheIssue is the only source employed for the investigation regarding whom the companies financially support. For more information regarding OnTheIssue, please see the previous section, Investigation, in this chapter and Appendix 1. For a more comprehensive overview of how the organisation work and which precise sources and methods they employ to obtain the result, please see https://www.ontheissues.org/.

Limitations and Delimitations

When analysing online sources, one limitation can be the quality of data, as companies and people tend to commercialise the information they present. However, as the study comprehends several different sources to ensure validity and utilises discourse analysis to unveil how CoreCivic and The GEO Group portray themselves, this limitation is not to grave in this study. Another limitation recognised is any classified documents that may not be obtainable, which could contain relevant information for this research.

A few delimitations have been incorporated into the research, narrowing the research achieving more precise results. First, the study is delimited to two cases, and will not represent all private prisons and actors contributing to the PIC. Any subsidiary companies, shareholder companies and similar will be left out of this study; the study will exclusively investigate CoreCivic and The GEO Group’s American branch. The secondary sources were delimited when investigating how external actors evaluate CoreCivic and The GEO Group’s work to ensure validity. Sources were solely selected where the companies are mentioned by name. Ergo, more information on the companies may be available; however, without certainty, those sources are indeed referring to CoreCivic and The GEO Group they cannot be included. It is important to note that this delimitation only applies where the study relates to CoreCivic and

The GEO Group, not general information regarding private prisons as a concept. Finally, the theory will work as a tool guiding the study towards achieving the objective. The theory is the only method used to analyse what powers the companies utilise to upkeep the PIC. There may well be other factors at play, which will be missed, due to merely using Lukes’ Three Dimension of Power.

5 Findings The following chapter presents the findings of this study. The first section offers background information about the cases, CoreCivic and The GEO Group, and relevant information regarding how they work. The second section expands on the first section, going deeper into how the companies operate, by showing the findings on lobbying activities, political connections, and contributions. The third section presents Americans view on crime and immigration, and how CoreCivic and The GEO Group portray themselves to the American public. The last part of this chapter presents the findings on how external actors have evaluated the companies work.

CoreCivic and The GEO Group: Background and Operation CoreCivic and The GEO Group are both publicly traded real estate investment trusts (REIT) who own and operate private prisons, detention, and immigration facilities in America (CoreCivic 2020c; The GEO Group 2020b). However, The GEO Group correspondingly operates prison and detention facilities in Australia, the United Kingdom and South Africa. Both companies were established in the early 1980s, CoreCivic in 1983 in Nashville, Tennessee by Tom Beasley, Robert Crants and T. Don Hutto (CoreCivic 2020c); and The GEO Group as a sub-division of the Wackenhut Corporation in 1984, with George C. Zoley as its founder, with its headquarters in Boca Raton, Florida (The GEO Group 2020b). Both companies rebranded, CoreCivic changed their name from Correction Corporation of America (CCA) in 2016 (CoreCivic 2020c) and The GEO Group from Wackenhut Corrections Corporation in 2003 (The GEO Group 2020b).

Tom Beasley says he and his co-founders launched CoreCivic since: For two hundred years, nobody but government had operated our prisons and jails. That lack of a comparative operation, that absolute lack of competition, had lulled states and local governments into indifference in dealing with what had become the lowest priority of government responsibilities - prisons (CoreCivic 2020c).

At the time, prison facilities were overcrowded, and according to the Federal Courts, most prisons were operated unconstitutionally. Beasley and his co- workers recognised this critical problem and chose to address the issue, consequently leading to CCA's creation (CoreCivic 2020c). The GEO Group was established on virtually the same grounds, to provide the government with an alternative to state-owned prions (The GEO Group 2020b).

CoreCivic aspires to help better the public good, their goal is to help the government solve recidivism, and in a letter to his shareholders Beasley says:

Our goal is to work collaboratively with our government partners to make the necessary investments to help reduce the alarmingly high rates of recidivism nationwide (CoreCivic 2020a:5).

The company believes providing diversified, high-quality solutions in cost- effective manners reduces recidivism. The GEO Group’s vision and goal are to supply governments worldwide with cost-saving, turnkey correctional and community facilities; whilst seeing Human Rights, evidence-based reintegration, safe environments, and quality facilities as its core values. The companies stated mission is:

GEO's mission is to develop innovative public-private partnerships with government agencies around the globe that deliver high quality, correctional, community re-entry, and electronic monitoring services while providing industry-leading rehabilitation and community reintegration programs to the men and women entrusted to our care (The GEO Group 2020b).

Like CoreCivic, The GEO Group believe they reduce recidivism by providing world-leading evidence-based rehabilitation (The Geo Group 2020b).

CoreCivic’s board of directors aspire to lead and ethically manage the company in a manner which benefits all parties involved. Several of the board members have held previous state and government positions. Others have worked for the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or are lawyers or businessmen and -women (CoreCivic 2020c).

Numerous members of the GEO Group’s board of directors and management team have, as CoreCivic, held previous state and government positions. They have correspondingly held influential positions in the military, at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and BOP. Likewise, in CoreCivic’s board of directors, several of the members are lawyers, businessmen, and women (The GEO Group 2020b).

5.1.1 Services

CoreCivic services come in three segments: CoreCivic Safety, CoreCivic Community and CoreCivic Properties. CoreCivic Safety aims at enhancing public safety through high-quality reinterring programs. The various programs available include educational programs, treatment and behavioural programs, re-entry services, faith-based programs, and victim impact programs. CoreCivic believes and aims for the programs to strengthen employment, increase social abilities, and reduce recidivism by changing the mind-set of the individual entrusted to their care. CoreCivic Community seeks to provide people with successful re-entry into society through a network of residential centres prior to release, yet again to enhance employment, reintegrate into society, and keep communities safe. In the CoreCivic Properties segment focus lies on the real estate CoreCivic provides. The main aim is to offer innovative and flexible solutions to the government and the people they serve for a great value (CoreCivic 2020c). Basely says:

[…] our real estate and associated services help make positive, real-world impacts on the lives entrusted to our care (CoreCivic 2020a:4). The GEO Group consists of three different divisions, GEO Secure Services, GEO Care and The GEO Group Foundation. The GEO Secure division focuses on providing state-of-the-art facilities, accommodation, electronic monitoring2,

2 The GEO Group provide electric monitoring through their wholly owned subsidiary company BI Incorporated (The GEO Group 2020b).

and transportation and intake of inmates (The GEO Group 2020b). The GEO Group explain what and whom GEO Care is thought to be for:

For correctional agencies seeking flexible solutions that hold individuals accountable, enhance public safety and contain costs, GEO Care delivers comprehensive approaches to manage, rehabilitate and treat individuals inside secure settings and throughout the community (The GEO Group 2020b). Within the division of care further branches can be identified. Two of them, and the most prominent ones, are GEOs Continuum of Care and their Re-entry Services. Continuum of Care offers rehabilitation programs preparing inmates for re-entry into society and focuses on enhanced assessment, counselling, intervention, transition, and aftercare. Some programs offered in this division are educational curriculums, substance abuse treatment and faith-based services. The Re-entry Services is meant for released convicts, to help with reintegration into society. These are mainly for inmates facing high risk for recidivism, by targeting the behavioural factors known to contribute to criminality, through cognitive behavioural treatment. The last division, The GEO Group Foundation, focuses on making a positive change through charitable work in the communities where they operate (The GEO Group 2020b).

5.1.2 Finance and Business

Over the past five years, CoreCivic had an overall annual revenue growth rate of 3.76% (CoreCivic 2020c) and The GEO Group of approximately 8% (The GEO Group 2017, 2019). In 2019 CoreCivic’s total revenue was about $1.98 billion, with a gross profit of almost $558 million (CoreCivic 2020c). The same year The GEO Group accounted for more than $2.47 billion in revenue and made their highest profit so far, nearly $655 million (The GEO Group 2019).

CoreCivic owns or controls around 58% of private prison beds in America. Moreover, they operate 43 safety facilities, 29 community facilities and leases 28 real estate properties where the government uses 16.1 million square feet directly or indirectly (CoreCivic 2020b). The GEO Group manages around 93,000 beds (74,000 are in America) in 123 facilities and processing centres (63 are in America) (The GEO Group 2020b). Consequently, making CoreCivic the largest private prison operator in America and The GEO Group the second largest. Both companies’ largest customers are federal businesses; they collect approximately half of its revenue from the ICE, the USMS and the BOP through leasing contracts. The contracts vary between fixed-price payment (most contracts) and non-fixed-payments (a minority of contracts). The fixed-price payments cover a portion of the total expenses a facility has independent of the number of inmates. Whilst non-fixed-price payments are per dime fair payments, based on the actual headcount of individuals in their custody (CoreCivic 2020b; The GEO Group 2020a).

As of 2019, CoreCivic had 14,075 employees, where over 50% were women and underrepresented minorities (CoreCivic 2020d) according to management, the overall employee relations are well satisfactory (CoreCivic 2020b). At present, The GEO Group has a body of over 23,000 employees where minorities make up for 38% of the company’s workforce in America, 68% of security staff and 28% of management director position or above (The GEO Group 2020b).

5.1.3 Strengths

CoreCivic (2020b) greatest strengths, according to itself, are their capacity and size to accommodate a significant number of individuals, their stable and robust relationship to government and their business structure Safety, Community and Properties. All of which provide high-quality, diverse solutions for rehabilitation to minimise recidivism, simultaneously generating sustainable growth and cash flow. The GEO Group (2020a) recognises itself

as strong in several areas. The most prominent areas identified are their experienced management team, steady revenue with handsome cash flow, long-term relationship with government, their attractive REIT profile; their world-leading high-quality evidenced-based re-entry and security services. Finally, the company recognises its strength in size and through its international approach.

5.1.1 Future Development

In 2019, CoreCivic entered several new agreements and managed to renew previously held contracts (CoreCivic 2020b). The GEO Group entered several new contracts, e.g., one eight-year and nine-month contract with USMS, (estimated to generate $29 million of revenue annually). Additionally, two further 15-year contracts with ICE (estimated to create $200 million in revenue annually) and renewed several previous contracts (The GEO Group 2020a).

CoreCivic and The GEO Group both see excellent potential for continued development and long-term sustainable growth. They expect the government's ongoing need to rely on private prison companies, both at home and abroad. Mainly due to the challenges the government faces regarding outdated facilities and the need to maintain, update, and expand their facilities (CoreCivic 2020b, The GEO Group 2020a).

5.1.1 Business Associated Risks

Despite the companies seeing great potential for growth and continued business, they both identify potential risk facing their business (CoreCivic 2020b; The GEO Group 2020a). A few of the stated risks CoreCivic (2020b) presents include reduced revenue and profit due to decreased occupancy level in their non-fixed rates contracts. Another risk identified is the public opinion on private prison as a concept, leading to a hindrance in generating new contracts. Additionally, another risk is decreasing crime rates, and changes regarding sentencing and a decline in government budgeting. Finally,

CoreCivic state that changes concerning laws and crime could affect private prisons' necessity and profitability, thus the companies’ existence. CoreCivic explain:

The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts […] or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws […] For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced […] reductions in crime rates or increases in resources dedicated to prevent crime could lead to a reduction in arrests, which could lead to a decrease in convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities (CoreCivic 2020b:39).

Like CoreCivic, The GEO Group recognises similar risks facing their business. The strong dependency on the private-public relationship is identified as a significant risk if outlook and policies regarding private prisons were to change. Other hindrances include electronic monitoring acceptance and governmental budgeting, which all might affect the company finances. The GEO Group correspondingly sees a potential loss in revenue and profit if a decrease in occupancy at one or several of their non-fixed price contracts facilities would occur (The GEO Group 2020a).

Lobbying, Political Connections and Contributions Lobbying and financial-political contribution is standard operating practice for private companies. Through such activities, companies ensure their issues on the agenda and steer the political landscape towards a desirable direction. In this part, the findings regarding what CoreCivic and The GEO group say they lobby for and why they give political contributions will be presented. Following a presentation concerning the findings on what lobbying activities external actors’ emphasis will be given. The next section concerns the investigation on who receives political contribution and where those

politicians stand on specific issues. Finally, the companies’ employee’s connection to politicians and government will be demonstrated.

5.2.1 Lobbying and Political Contribution: CoreCivic and The GEO Groups’ Statements

Both CoreCivic and The GEO Group financially support politicians, political parties and organisations and use the means of lobbying (CoreCivic 2020e; The GEO Group 2018). In their latest political activity and lobbying reports, each of the companies presented the revenue spent on such activities. CoreCivic (2020e) announced $879,000.00 spent on political contributions and $2.1 million on lobbying fees and payments. The GEO Group (2018) reported approximately $3.3 million in political donations and roughly $4.3 million in lobbying activities.

Regarding their lobbying activities, political and governmental relations CoreCivic states:

CoreCivic’s political and government relations activities are designed to educate federal, state and local officials on the benefits of partnership corrections, CoreCivic’s ability to assist them in meeting their needs and our track record of success. Our company does not, under longstanding policy, lobby for or against policies or legislation that would determine the basis for or duration of an individual’s incarceration or detention (CoreCivic2020e:1). Additionally, CoreCivic say:

Although, under long-standing policy, CoreCivic does not draft, lobby for, promote, or in any way take a position on policies that determine the basis or duration of an individual's incarceration or detention, CoreCivic supported adoption of The First Step Act3 because the legislation aligns with our publicly stated commitment to advocate for a range of recidivism-reducing policies by providing additional resources to help ensure that

3 The act has three major components: (1) correctional reform via the establishment of a risk and needs assessment system at BOP, (2) sentencing reform that involved changes to penalties for some federal offenses, and (3) the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199) (James 2019).

incarcerated individuals are given the best possible chance to successfully return to their communities and stay out of prison (CoreCivic2020b:39). The GEO Group presents a similar statement regarding their efforts in lobbying and political and governmental relations:

GEO’s political and governmental relations activities focus on promoting the use of public-private partnerships in the delivery of evidence-based rehabilitation programs, both in-custody and post-release, aimed at reducing recidivism and helping the men and women in our care successfully reintegrate into their communities. GEO does not take a position on or advocate for or against criminal justice and immigration policy related to criminalizing certain behaviors, determining the length of criminal sentences, or immigration enforcement policies (The GEO Group 2020b) The GEO Group also mentions:

Political contributions made by GEO entities or the GEO PAC should not be construed as an endorsement of all policies or positions adopted by any given candidate (The GEO Group 2018:1)

5.2.2 Lobbying: External Actors

The secondary literature specifically stresses one lobbying partner whom both companies have heavily funded, namely, the America Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) (Bender 2000; Eisenberg 2016; Jayes 2019; Wilce & Graves 2014). ALEC is America’s largest volunteer-based membership organisation of state legislators and lobbyists, an extensive amount of their lobbyists has previously held government positions (Wilce & Graves 2014). Bender (2000) emphasizes ALEC’s essential role in developing America’s criminal-justice and prisons system. Wilce and Graves (2014) essentially explain how ALEC’s relationship to private prisons has contributed to the PIC:

Its zeal to privatize prisons has fundamentally altered our criminal justice system, making it very profitable to arrest and lock up more Americans and immigrants and do so for longer (Wilce & Graves 2014).

One of the most known applications lobbied for by ALEC is their “Report Card on Crime” from 1994, which lists ten proposals aiming at keeping criminals off the streets (Sarabi 2002). The proposals were acknowledged by thousands of elected officials and criminal justice experts across the country. Several of the proposals later become laws, for example, mandatory minimum sentencing, treating juveniles as adults and the three-strike law (Bender 2000). The laws consequently made it easier to convict more people for longer (Jayes 2019; Wilce & Graves 2014).

Moreover, ALEC was a primary contributor to the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (Sullivan 2010). The bill was sought to strengthen the enforcement of immigration law. Section 2, chapter 7, article 8 C of the bill states:

If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection (Senate Bill 1070 2010) In response to the bill, Laura Sullivan (2010) explains how private prisons will gain hundreds of million dollars from housing immigrants. In their study, Moreno and Price (2017) show how CoreCivic and The GEO Group spent more than 90% of their lobbying revenue to push for bills similar to the Arizona Senate Bill 1070. They further explain how lobbying has become a tool to securitise the issue of immigration post 9/11; and how companies such as CoreCivic and The GEO Group are the driving force of such actions.

Furthermore, CoreCivic has lobbied for increased guaranteed bed quotas from the Office of Federal Dentation Trustee and ICE. The policy means actual payment covering at least 34,000 individuals independent of immigration levels (Galinato & Rohla 2020). The company have correspondingly been strong opposition to legislation which would entail the same disclosure rules for private prisons as public ones (Hodai 2010).

Finally, Robert Craig (2020) explains how private prison operators, in particular CoreCivic and The GEO Group, hire lobbyists as a method to increase prison populations and construction of prisons. Craig (2020:268) states how private prisons lobbying efforts are: “[…] not just unseemly but inhumane”.

5.2.3 Political Contributions: External Actors

A large majority of both CoreCivic and The GEO Groups financial contributions go to Republicans. The companies both heavily funded the Trump administration in 2016 and 2020 (Federal Election Commission 2020; Disclosurespreview.house.gov 2020). One explanation regarding the company’s political actions has been that Democrats want to phase out private prisons. Whilst Trump ran a campaign where he emphasised how he would be hard on crime and immigration, consequently favouring private prisons (Fornili 2018).

5.2.4 Political Contributions: Candidate Investigation

This study explored which politicians the companies have financially supported over the past five years and where they stand on the issue of crime, immigration, and drugs (see appendix for all results and for full disclosure of what the questions and answers entail). CoreCivic supported 87% Republicans and 13% Democrats out of the investigated politicians, and The GEO Group supported 86% Republicans and 14% Democrats.

The first issue investigated regarded the politicians view on stricter punishment to reduce crime. Out of the sample, 60% of CoreCivic and 57% of The GEO Group’s politicians support or strongly support stricter punishment to reduce crime. OnTheIssue explains how Strongly Support means the politicians believe that:

'Three Strikes' laws put dangerous repeat offenders where they belong - behind bars, for life. And the Death Penalty gets rid of

them once and for all. Mandatory sentencing and strict enforcement make sure that judges don't let off criminals too easily. And to Support means, you believe: Keep death penalty and 'Three Strikes' laws on the books because they seem to be effective but consider ways to deal with special circumstances so we can avoid horror stories of inappropriate imprisonment (OnTheIssue 2020).

The second issue focuses on illegal and legal immigration. Here, 87% out of CoreCivic politicians opposed or strongly opposed the idea of providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens; meanwhile, out of The GEO Groups politicians, 78% oppose or strongly oppose the idea. To Strongly Oppose means, politicians believe: Maintaining legal immigration while enforcing against illegal immigration. Tighten our borders - decrease substantially or stop all immigration so we can address domestic problems. Strongly Oppose means you believe: We should strictly enforce our immigration laws by increasing border patrols, and we should crack down on illegal immigrants already in the US by deportation and by removing all their social benefits. In the long run, we should decrease immigration (OnTheIssue 2020).

The last issue concerned drugs, the sample was investigated on their position in the War on Drugs and if they saw marijuana as a gateway drug. 73% of the politicians CoreCivic funded, supported, or strongly supported the issue whilst 57% of The GEO Groups backed politicians support or strongly support the issue. To Strongly Support means politicians, believe: Drug use is immoral, and drugs poison our youth and our society. We should fight the Drug War using all reasonable means - Just Say No! To Support the issue mean you believe: The Drug War is winnable if we invest enough resources. We should do whatever we have to do: More police, more border patrols, more intervention abroad, more prison terms, more prisons (OnTheIssue 2020).

5.2.5 Political Network

As previously mentioned, several of CoreCivic’s board of directors have strong bonds and relationships to government and politicians. For example, in the 1980s board member Donna M. Alvarado held several senior positions in

government. For instance, she was the deputy assistant secretary of Defence and council for U.S Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Besides, Donna was appointed by President Reagan to be the director of ACTION, a federal volunteer committee. Moreover, President Obama appointed Stacia Hylton to become the Director for USMS, and Harley G. Lappin worked at BOP for more than 25 years. Finally, Thurgood Marshall has held several positions in various government branches, including Cabinet Secretary to President Clinton (CoreCivic 2020c).

The GEO Group equally has ties to government agencies and politicians. Current board member Anne Newman Foreman previously held a position as Under Secretary for the US Air Force, and Julie M. Wood served as head of ICE. Blake Davis (president of GEO Secure Services) previously held the position as Assistant Director of BOP. Joe Negron (Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary) was a Florida Legislature for fifteen years, including the Florida Senate president. Prior to his employment at The GEO Group, David J. Venrurealla (Senior Vice President of Client Relations) worked at ICE for 22 years (The GEO Group 2020b).

Public Image The upcoming section is devoted to shedding light on how CoreCivic and The GEO Group portray themselves to the American society. First, by introducing what the average American’s perception of crime and immigration is in America, to then show how CoreCivic and The GEO Group portray themselves and their work on their websites using discourse analysis.

5.3.1 Perception of Crime and Immigration in America

Surveys have shown how the average American believes crime has risen in recent years and that immigrants increase criminality and are threats to society. In a survey by Gallup (2020a), 78% of the people thought crime had risen nationally in 2020, which is the highest number recorded by Gallup so far.

Gallup (2020c) also recorded that 47% of the American people saw immigrants as a critical threat, and 42% believed immigrants were increasing criminality in 2019.

However, research has revealed both popular perceptions to be wrong. According to FBI data, violent crime has decreased by 49% since 1993 and property crime by 55% (FBI 2020). Ousey and Kubrin (2018) research on the immigration-crime nexus shows how a negative but very weak correlation between crime and immigration can be identified. Suggesting immigrants are not increasing crime levels. In a compilation of survey data, Gallup (2020b) indicates how the Americans' skewed perception of immigration and crime is due to government and in particular Republicans in later years. Fermor and Holland (2020) seconds this in their study, where they show how immigrants have been framed as security threats and as criminal by the Trump Administration.

5.3.2 CoreCivic and The GEO Group: Discourse

On their websites, CoreCivic (2020c) and The GEO Group (2020b) present themselves as being valuable core players in solving challenges concerning immigration, correction and especially recidivism. The companies equally strongly emphasize how they were established to solve a problem and how they, the private sector, can perform service not possible to be done by the government. Additionally, they demonstrate how they have all the means necessary to provide the government and inmates with high-quality solutions. Their solution will help the government save money and inmates to re-enter society and become law-abiding, successful citizens. When the companies are referring to their work, they use and emphasise words such as “state-of-the- art”, “unique”, “world-leading” and “life-changing”. When the companies are referring to the government, the companies use words such as, “lacking”, “failing” and “critical problems” (CoreCivic 2020c; The GEO Group 2020b).

CoreCivic (2020c) presents itself as a through and through American company from its name, colour pallet (red, blue, and white) to its logo (which display the American flag) and its slogan “Better the Public Good”. The GEO Group (2020b), on the other hand, presents itself in a more international “worldly” manner, through its name (mainly GEO which means Earth in Latin), its colour pallet is green and blue, and it displays the world map in its logo.

Some words the audience is first presented with when entering CoreCivic’s website is: “Standing Strong”, “Safety”, “Community”, “Social Responsibility”, “For Families”, “Partnership”, “Investor”, “Re-entry”, “Join our Heroes”, “Respectful”, “Compassionate”, and “Changing lives” (CoreCivic 2020c). For the GEO Group, similar words catch your attention: “Social Responsibility”, “Human Rights”, “Secure Services”, “Care”, “Responsible”, “Proud”, “Supporting Community”, “Investor”, “Re-entry Success”, “Global Leader”, and “Evidence-Based-Re-entry” (The GEO Group 2020b). Consequently, portraying how they care for you no matter if you are an inmate, relative to an inmate, a potential investor or a citizen wanting to know more about the company. Thus, conveying a very approachable and welcoming image of themselves to a broad audience.

Reoccurring is the focus on rehabilitation, and as mentioned, the companies want to do well by the people in their care. Which becomes evident through statements such as:

GEO aspires to be the world's leading provider of evidence-based rehabilitation across a diversified spectrum of correctional and community re-entry services (The GEO Group 2020b).

GEO is committed to providing leading, evidence-based rehabilitation programs to individuals while in-custody and post- release into the community […] (The GEO Group 2020b).

GEO believes in making a positive impact on the communities we serve (The GEO Group 2020b).

CoreCivic is committed to providing high quality, compassionate treatment to all those in our care […] we operate safe facilities

that provide education and effective re-entry programming to help individuals make positive changes so they can return to the community successfully (CoreCivic 2020c).

Safe, secure facilities and effective re-entry programs improve public safety and reduce recidivism (CoreCivic 2020c).

The photographs presented on CoreCivic and The GEO Group websites are remarkably similar and support the approachable, friendly image the companies convey through words. The pictures represent staff and inmates smiling and, in several pictures’, inmates are presented in graduation gowns or classrooms with employees. In the photos portraying staff, there is an equal representation of women and men. Additionally, a diversified image of ethnicities is presented both amongst staff and inmates. There are no clear photos of where inmates live. The only images of their facilities are of the exterior or inside classrooms and in gardens. There are not any photos regarding immigration detention centres. Other photos show smiling citizens in the communities where the companies have their facilities (CoreCivic 2020c; The GEO Group 2020b). The GEO Group portrays smiling kids and communities coming together in celebration (The GEO Group 2020b).

The term “higher purpose” is used on several occasions on the CoreCivic website portraying an almost religious view. Other notable findings are how founder Tom Beasley refers to CEO Damon Hininger by his first name and how Beasley addresses the readers as “friends”—consequently portraying both Tom and Damon as approachable and equal to the reader. Another finding regarding how CoreCivic portrays itself is how they present where their facilities are located. They describe their facilities in a more often related way to shopping malls, amusement parks, or car dealerships (CoreCivic 2020c). On the website, you can read:

From California to New Jersey, CoreCivic has facilities throughout the United States. Use the state filter and map below to find the facility location nearest you (CoreCivic 2020c).

The GEO Group focus lies less on approachability and more on quality and safety. On their website, statements, as follows, are reoccurring and common:

From the development of state-of-the-art facilities and the provision of management services and evidence-based rehabilitation to the post-release reintegration and supervision of individuals in the community, GEO offers fully diversified, cost- effective services that deliver enhanced quality and improved outcomes (The GEO Group 2020b).

The GEO Group is fully committed to operating our facilities and programs at the highest level of quality, providing safe, secure, and humane environments for our staff, those in our custody and care (The GEO Group 2020b).

GEO’s success around the world has been achieved by our highly- trained work force (The GEO Group 2020b).

Another interesting finding is how little attention is focused on the company’s immigration centres and facilities. The companies both explain how they are important actors in helping the government with immigration, but there is no significant information on how these facilities are run nor are there any pictures of these facilities or the people they hold (CoreCivic 2020c; The GEO Group 2020b).

The overall impression when reading the company’s website is cheerful and inviting. The companies make you think they want to do well by the people in their care, their staff, and the communities they sever. Their focus is to ensure inmates find a permanent pathway back into society where they can thrive. Success stories and happy faces on all pictures where inmates go to school and garden conveys a place where you want to be, not a place you are forced to be. The information contributes to the companies' image of charities, care homes or rehabilitation centres, and valuable core players in America's fight to reduce recidivism and obliterate crime. To summarize, the discourse presented in both CoreCivic’s and The GEO Group’s website is inviting and friendly. It leaves you with the impression they are actively trying to provide high-quality solutions to the government and help the people in their care.

CoreCivic and The GEO Group: Evaluation by External Actors Scholars and journalists have investigated and evaluated the work of companies constituting to the PIC. The upcoming section presents some finding on how the previous literature has evaluated CoreCivic’s and The GEO Group’s work.

A topic often discussed in the literature regarding private prisons are their quality and safety or lack thereof. According to The Federal Bureau of Prisons (2020), prisons’ primary goal is to provide a safe, humane, and cost-efficient environment for convicted criminals. Prisons should also offer self- improvement programs to help convicts reintegrate into society when their sentence is complete. In 2016, the Deputy Attorney General, Sally Q. Yates, released a memo stating that private prisons lack security and safety and do not provide the same services and quality rehabilitation as state-owned prisons (Deputy Attorney General 2016). Correspondingly the report mentions how private prisons have not lived up to their cost-saving claims as promised. In response to the memo, the Department of Justice (under the Obama administration) announced a phase-out of private prisons. The Trump administration retrieved the decision a year later (Fornili, 2018).

The secondary research and literature seconds Sally Q. Yates statement by explaining how there is no evidence nor indications of private prisons being cost saving for the government (Einsberg 2016; Mumford, Schanzenbach & Nunn 2016; Mamun et al. 2020; White, Pena & Weiler 2020). Einsberg (2016) explains how private prison structure themselves as REITs to reduced federal tax, consequently leading to financial benefits for the company and its shareholders. Einsberg (2016) exemplifies CoreCivic and The GEO Group for such practice.

Fornili (2018) explains how inmates in private prison facilities are less likely to be granted parole. The environment is less humane than in government- funded prisons, and inmates are more likely to leave the prison more “dangerous” then when entering. Fornili (2018) mentions both CoreCivic and The GEO Group in here research as examples. Mamun et al. (2020) explain how one way private prisons, including CoreCivic and The GEO Group, try to cut down on cost is by having a lower staff-inmate ratio and lower staff wages. Consequently, leading to a harsher environment within prisons, which in turn increases the chance of inmates engaging with criminal activities post-release, thus, increasing recidivism.

CoreCivic has used pepper spray on people in their care on at least four occasions; ICEs press office confirmed several incidents. The GEO Group used pepper spray on inmates on at least five different occasions. In a GEO detention centre in Louisiana, 80 women were left in a dorm filled with pepper spray (Lanard 2020). The GEO Group has failed several Quality Assessment Report (QAR) inspections, e.g., in New York, the medical staff was preforming work outside of their licensure. Another facility in Colorado operated by the GEO Group was reported as being in a state of crisis. Individuals were not receiving medical care, and medical staff reported how the work executed by the official correctional body could be described as “abusive, caustic and unprofessional treatment” (Mother Jones 2019).

Furthermore, The U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division reported how a CoreCivic facility in Kansas had severe issues. The report stated CoreCivic had, without permission, added extra beds in two- person cells, accordingly, leading to overcrowding. Additionally, a QAR report explained how individuals did not receive appropriate psychiatric or pregnancy care in another CoreCivic facility (Mother Jones 2019).

Shane Bauer is a journalist who went undercover as a correctional officer in a CoreCivic prison in Winnfield, Louisiana in 2015. He explains how the

starting salary was $9.00/hour (state salary was $12.50/hour) and how in the interview CoreCivic did not ask any personal questions regarding his previous work or criminal record. A worker at CoreCivic said: “…if you come here and you breathing and you got a valid driver’s license and you willing to work, then we’re willing to hire you” (Bauer 2016). The company hires former felons they do not consider to be a security risk. Bauer reports in their training to use force before becoming a guard the instructors said: “If an inmate hit me, I’m go’ hit his ass right back. I don’t care if the camera’s rolling. If a inmate spit on me, he’s gonna have a very bad day” (Bauer 2016). When the instructor asked about what you as a guard should do if you saw two inmates stabbing each other, a veteran guard said: “I’d sit there and holler ‘stop,'”. The instructor responds: “Damn right. That’s it. If they don’t pay attention to you, hey, there ain’t nothing else you can do” Bauer (2016). He also explains how guards are referred to as “free people” by guards and inmates within the prisons, and that inmates’ jobs can include washing employees’ private cars. Bauer noted other aspects, e.g., that correctional officers do not get sick pay and how inmates with severe medical conditions did not receive the care needed. Inmates told Bauer how the only thing they do is sit in their cells and stare at the wall. They did not have the opportunity to work, attend activities and programs, or receive recreational time. Stabbing between inmates was a regular event in Winnfield Louisiana, and sexual assault is common both inmate to inmate and guard to inmate. One story regarded an inmate called China. She explained how she was raped by other inmates several times and how one guard forced her to perform oral sex, or there would be consequences.

CoreCivic and The GEO Group have both had numerous lawsuits filed against them. CoreCivic, for example, settled a lawsuit for $2.3 million, the allocation regarded employees not receiving pay for all hours worked (Semins 2020). Another ongoing lawsuit concerned inmates not receiving adequate medical care regarding a scabies outbreak (Horan 2017). The GEO Group has an

ongoing lawsuit where the company’s employees illegally separated 13 fathers from their sons, at one of The GEO group ICE facilities (Petrie 2019). Another ongoing lawsuit accuses The GEO Group of violating anti-slavery laws, and the allocation claims immigrants were forced to work in ICE facilities for $1.00/day or less (Phillips 2017).

Finally, as mentioned in the previous section in the chapter on lobbying, Craig (2020), amongst others, clearly criticises CoreCivic and The GEO Groups’ work especially regarding their lobbying efforts.

6 Analysis In this chapter, an analysis of the findings will be conducted by employing Steven Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power, to uncover how the companies have utilised different forms of power. Subsequently seeing if the powers used are contributing to the maintenance of the PIC. The chapter is divided into three sections; the first section is concerned with the first-dimensional view and will assess what real power the companies have utilised. The second section will appropriately analyse the findings through the second dimension and, uncover what structural power the companies have employed. The final section will analyse the findings through the third-dimensional view, consequently exposing how the companies have exercised soft power.

Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power

6.1.1 The First Dimension – Real Power

Steven Lukes’ first dimension of power comprehends real, visible power; the power one actor has over another. The real power CoreCivic and The GEO Group hold is how their business is run, and over the inmates in their facilities. When analysing how the companies have utilised real power, an abusive image appears.

As the findings chapter showed, CoreCivic and The GEO Group have chosen to compromise both safety and quality in their facilities to increase profit (Bauer 2016; Mamun et al. 2020; Mother Jones 2019). The companies use questionable standards of practice when hiring and educating staff, and Bauer (2016) means CoreCivic accepts virtually anyone who wants to work for them, even ex-criminals. The companies tend to have a lower staff to inmate ratio, and more inmates in each cell (Mamun et al. 2020). All statements above have been said to increase violence within prisons and decrease the chance of a successful re-entry into society post-release (Fornili 2018). Lowered quality

and safety measures for profit are not in the inmates’ best interest, but in the companies’ best interest, and the inmates have no choice but to comply. These actions show how the companies have employed the one-dimensional power to increase their profit, consequently contributing to the PIC. Another example of the conflict of interest between the companies and inmates is when inmates are pepper-sprayed and refused proper medical care (Bauer 2016; Lanard 2020; Mother Jones 2019). Yet again, the inmates are forced to comply, the companies have the power over inmates and are thus executing the first dimension of power.

Bauer’s (2016) experience as a correctional officer further shows how the first dimension of power has been used in an abusive way by CoreCivic. In training, new staff were encouraged to use force towards the criminals and not intervene in any way when inmates were stabbing each other. A correctional officer forced inmates into sexual activities and threatens consequences if they do not obey. Both are clear examples of the execution of the first dimension of power.

The companies have indeed used the first dimensions of power over inmates but most importantly, to retain high-profit margins. In that sense, it can be suggested and argued that the companies indirectly maintain the PIC by merely maintaining profitability.

6.1.2 The Second Dimension – Structural Power

The second dimension assesses structural power, the power of decision and non-decision making. One of the prominent features within the second dimension is the power to set the agenda. A clear correlation between agenda- setting and the cases of CoreCivic and The GEO Group can be identified when assessing the companies lobbying efforts. The companies managed to influence the agenda by lobbying through ALEC. As Bender (2000) and Wilce and Graves (2014) explained, ALEC had a substantial role in developing the current law system, which has made it easier to arrest and hold criminals.

Additionally, Moreno and Price (2016) explain how the companies’ lobbying efforts focus on generating stricter immigration laws. Furthermore, Craig (2020) describes how the companies' lobbying efforts have led to an increasing prison population and more contracts for the private sectors, subsequently increasing their profit. Galinato and Rohla (2020) show how CoreCivic has lobbied for increased bed quotas, generating a failsafe cash flow. The companies additionally state how a decrease in incarceration and changes in crime laws might severely affect their business (CoreCivic 2020b; The GEO Group 2020a). Thus, continued hard crime laws and incarceration is of vital importance for the companies. Therefore, it can be argued CoreCivic and The GEO Group has employed the second dimension of power to guarantee the upkeep of the PIC by ensuring continued incarceration, harsh crime and immigration laws, and actual government payments through lobbying.

Further examples of how the companies have employed power can be identified when assessing the second dimension of power with the two cases. The companies have made political and financial contribution to political parties and politicians, which effects the politician's opportunity to market themselves, hence, their chance to execute soft power and get their opinions heard. Both companies heavily funded the Trump Administration focusing on crime and immigration (Disclosurespreview.house.gov 2020; Federal Election Commission 2020; Fornili 2018). The investigation into politicians whom the companies financially support, suggests a clear majority of the politicians who receive funding from the companies are Republicans. Republicans are more likely to support private prisons (Democrats wanted to phase out private prisons) (Fornili 2018). Fermor and Holland (2020) explain how the Trump Administration has contributed to the vilifying of immigrants, and it has been argued Republicans are the main driving force for the deceitful crime rate view in America (Gallup 2020b). The investigation results also suggest most of the politicians supported financially are pro harsh crime/immigration laws and

sentences and believe the War on Drugs need to be fought. Which, in turn, contributes to the deceitful picture of criminality in America.

We know crime is proportionally decreasing (FBI 2020), and there is no correlation between immigration and crime (Ousey & Kubrin 2018), and society does not benefit from believing this is the case. Which, subsequently begs the question, why are the politicians framing issues in this manner? Someone needs to benefit from it - the PIC could be the answer. The only beneficiary will be actors profiting from society believing crime is high, which justifies mass incarceration. CoreCivic and The GEO Group perfectly fits the description of such actors. Therefore, it can be argued the companies' political contributions are contributing to the maintenance of the PIC; as the politicians receiving most of the funding, are advocating for issues in line with the PIC. It should be noted that The GEO Group states they do not stand for all the issues of the politicians they fund. But they do not state which issues (The GEO Group 2018), leaving me in a position where I can neither suggest nor reject if they support the politicians' views on crime, immigration, and drugs.

Moreover, the second dimension of power can be suggested to be exercised by the companies’ board of directors and management teams. Several board members and managers have held previous government positions and/or has/had ties to politicians (CoreCivic 2020c; The GEO Group 2020b). Strong ties to ICE, USMS, and BOP (who the companies make a large proportion of their profit from) and government official could be advantageous when deciding to renew old contracts. Or to choose with whom new agreements should be signed or how large a proportion of the government budgets should be dedicated to private operators. Several employees have worked for, or directly under presidents, not least Presidents Nixon, and Reagan (CoreCivic 2020c; The GEO Group 2020b), who held the presidencies during the PIC's uprising. Relationships like these could prove efficient when justifying the company’s existence, profit-driven motives, and the PIC's upkeep. However,

there is no clear evidence of such practice, as activity of this sort would take place behind closed doors. The opportunity for the company to use structural power in this manner is nonetheless a possibility. Therefore, it can be suggested that practices of such may have occurred.

6.1.3 The Third Dimension – Soft Power

The third-dimensional view is concerned with power over the mind or soft power. Actors utilising the third dimension of power, seek to influence and steer the recipient’s beliefs and wants, in a desirable direction given by the actor. The third-dimensional view is not an observable power; hence it is hard to identify and measure. Therefore, it can only be suggested how the companies have exercised the third dimension of power and its impact on their respective audience.

CoreCivic and The GEO Group emphasise how their existence, to a certain extent, relies on societies acceptance of private prisons. Both companies’ state how loss of public support may have severe risks for their business (CoreCivic 2020b; The GEO Group 2020a). Thus, it is in the companies’ best interest to portray a positive view of themselves to receive society's acceptance. The companies can influence the societies view on private prisons by how they present themselves on their websites. Hence, how the companies convey themselves is a form of the third-dimensional power.

As uncovered through a discourse analysis of the companies’ websites, CoreCivic and The GEO Group convey a very positive image. The companies stated mission and visions additionally explain how they want to do good for the people in their care and for society. The companies also argue their lobbying and political contributions are not related to issues contributing to the PIC. Quite the opposite, there is an emphasis on how in particular, CoreCivic is supporting the Fair Step Act, subsequently conveying a very humane, anti- PIC view of the companies and their work (CoreCivic 2020b, 2020c, 2020e;

The GEO Group 2018, 2020b). However, when assessing how previous research evaluates the companies work a different picture appears. An image conveying a negative view where the companies have focused more on increasing profit and less on the wellbeing of their inmates and on helping government (Bauer 2016; Craig 2020; Einsberg 2016; Fornili 2018; Mamun, et al. 2020; Mumford, Schanzenbach & Nunn 2016; White, Pena & Weiler 2020). Which suggests the companies are more concerned with what image they convey to the public than living up to their perceived image. The companies are rather interested in reassuring their existence and continued cash flow. Therefore, it can be argued that the vital need for society’s acceptance has led to the companies intentionally working towards influencing society’s views on private prisons. From this standpoint, the companies contribute to the PIC's maintenance by employing the third dimension of power.

As for how successful and influential the soft power executed by CoreCivic and The GEO Group is for society's acceptance, and the PIC's upkeep is hard to say. The compiled survey data from Gallup (2020b) and Fermor and Holland (2020) suggest Republicans and the Trump Administration have been the main driving force for the record-high number of people believing crime is worse than ever, and that immigration increases crime rates. However, I cannot suggest that the private prison's political contributions significantly influenced the outcome. Nor can a relationship between accepting private prisons as a concept and believing criminality is high, be identified. The only thing that can be suggested is that the companies are employing the third- dimensional power to ensure their continued acceptance and existence for the PIC's upkeep. But even here, it is hard to propose a strong argument, as soft power is invisible and there have been no clear statements by the companies saying they support the PIC, conversely quite the opposite. But again, this could be the companies utilising soft power to gain acceptance. Here, the

struggle when analysing the third-dimensional power becomes evident, we are left with a complicated paradox.

7 Conclusion The findings clearly show how CoreCivic and The GEO Group operate in a contradictory manner. They explain how their mission is to offer high-quality correction and rehabilitations centres, reduce recidivism, and not use lobbying and political contributions to affect crime rates. But the opposite has been shown. The companies do not offer the high-quality correction facilities advocated for, in fact, recidivism has been revealed as higher amongst inmates held in private facilities, and quality is lacking. Correspondingly, the companies argue that a decrease in crime rates may be a threat to their very existence, so they consequently lobbied for laws which make it easier to arrest and convict. Additionally, they financially support politicians’ who advocate for harsh crime, drug, and immigration laws. Moreover, the companies similarly display contradictory traits, uncovered when examining how they portray themselves to the American society compared to how research and external actors evaluate their work. CoreCivic and The GEO Group portray themselves as caring and charitable, whilst external actors emphasise how the companies mistreat staff and inmates and compromise quality and safety for profit.

By analysing the findings through Lukes’ Three Dimension of Power, it becomes clear the companies do indeed utilise the first dimension of power to sustain high-profit margins. Thus, it can be suggested that the companies are using real power indirectly to upkeep the PIC by merely maintaining their profitability. Moreover, when applying the second and third dimension, several cases could be identified. The most prominent way the companies employed the second dimension was through lobbying. The companies lobbying efforts have increased prison population, subsequently contributing to governments need to rely on private prisons, thus maintaining the PIC. As the third dimension of power is invisible, it is hard to say with certainty whether the companies have intentionally employed the power or not. With

that said, this research can suggest how the companies have used the power to maintain the PIC. How the companies portray themselves in contrast to how external actors are describing the companies are heavily conflicting. This, combined with the companies stating they are reliant on society's acceptance for continued survival, could be signs of the companies employing the third dimension of power to maintain their existence and with it the PIC.

The broader conclusion we can draw from this study is that private prisons and actors may not be the problem per se, as private actors only play by the rules of America’s neo-liberal capitalist model. The problem is that America’s model allows private actors to profit from incarcerating people. And, that private actors can “buy” political influence to shape our social contract, in favour of profit at the expense of the people. It is neither humane nor democratic to be able to gain social and political power through monetary means. The social contract is not legitimate if money can decide what should go in it, leaving me to believe that Weber’s thought seems to be accurate. On that note, to end the exploitation of humans, and what the PIC entails, America’s neo-liberal model must be altered. Private actors must be wholly excluded from infiltrating the political sphere. Thus, no government agencies, politician and lobbying agencies etc. should be allowed funding from private actors.

The only way this is possible is if society acts against the current system. Therefore, people need to be educated on how private actors infiltrate and steer society and how they do that at the people's expense. This research contributes to this as a first step in that direction, but further research needs to be conducted, not only on the correction business itself but on private actors overall. Other industries, such as the pharmaceutical and agriculture sector, similarly use comparable methods. Therefore, studies mapping out which role the private sector as a whole, has on societies and what consequence they bring with them need to be conducted.

8 References

Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Revised ed., New York: The New Press. Amadeo, K. (2020). What Is The Ideal GDP Growth Rate?. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-ideal-gdp-growth-rate-3306017 [2020-11-30].

Anderson-Zavala, C., Krueger-Henney, P., Meiners, E. & Pour-Khorshid, F. (2017). Fierce Urgency of Now: Building Movements to End the Prison Industrial Complex in Our Schools. Multicultural Perspectives, 19(3), pp.151-154.

Aristotle (1981). The Politics, ed. Barker, E. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Azikiwe, A. (2018). Mass Incarceration For Profit: The Dual Impact Of The Thirteenth Amendment And The Unresolved Question Of National Oppression In The United States. https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass- incarceration-for-profit-the-dual-impact-of-the-thirteenth-amendment- and-the-unresolved-question-of-national-oppression-in-the-united- states/5629726 [2020-12-14].

Bailey, B. (2020). Innocent but Incarcerated: Reforming Oklahoma’s Criminal Pretrial Procedures to Combat Discrimination Against Indigent Defendants. Oklahoma Law Review, 72(4), pp. 923-962.

BI Incorporated (2020). BI Incorporated - Electronic Monitoring Solutions Provider. https://bi.com/ [2020-12-20].

Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. 5th ed., Oxford: OUP.

Cao, L. (2018). Made in America: Race, Trade, and Prison Labor. SSRN Electronic Journal, pp.1-59.

CoreCivic (2020a). 2019 Annual Letter to Shareholders. Nashville, TN: CoreCivic.

CoreCivic (2020b). Annual Report 2019. Nashville, TN: CoreCivic.

CoreCivic (2020c). CoreCivic. https://www.corecivic.com/ [2020-12-13].

CoreCivic (2020d). ESG Report 2019. Nashville, TN: CoreCivic.

CoreCivic (2020e). Political-Activity-Lobbying-Report. Nashville, TN: CoreCivic.

Craig, R., and Cummings, A. (2020). Abolishing Private Prisons: A Constitutional and Moral Imperative. University of Baltimore Law Review, 49(3), pp.216-312.

Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Fifth ed., Los Angeles: SAGE.

Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. (2002). Explaining Society Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. English ed., London: Routledge. Davis, A. (1998). Masked Racism: Reflections On The Prison Industrial Complex. Colorlines, September 10. https://www.colorlines.com/articles/masked-racism-reflections-prison- industrial-complex [2020-11-30].

Davis, A. Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete?. New York: Seven Stories. Deputy Attorney General (2016). Memorandum For The Acting Director Federal Bureau Of Prisons. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Eisenberg, A. (2016). Incarceration Incentives in the Decarceration Era. Vanderbilt Law Review, 69(1), pp.71-140.

FBI (2020). UCR Publications - Federal Bureau Of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/publications [2020-12-27].

Federal Bureau of Prisons (2020). About Our Agency. https://www.bop.gov/about/agency/agency_pillars.jsp [2020-12-02]. Federal Election Commission (2020). Campaign Finance Data. https://www.fec.gov/data/ [2020-12-09]

Feeley, M. (2002). Entrepreneurs of punishment. Punishment & Society, 4(3), pp.321-344. Fermor, B., & Holland, J. (2020). Security and polarisation in Trump's America: Securitisation and the domestic politics of threatening others. Global Affairs (Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK), 6(1), pp.55-70.

Fornili, K. (2018). Racialized Mass Incarceration and the War on Drugs. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(1), pp.65-72.

Galinato, G. and Rohla, R. (2020). Do privately-owned prisons increase incarceration rates?. Labour Economics, 67, pp.1-20. Gallup (2020a). Crime. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx [2020- 12-08]. Gallup (2020b). Perceptions of Increased U.S. Crime at Highest Since 1993. https://news.gallup.com/poll/323996/perceptions-increased-crime- highest-1993.aspx [2020-12-08]. Gallup (2020c). Immigration. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx [2020-12-08].

George, A.L. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. London: MIT.

Goodwin, M. (2019). The Thirteenth Amendment: Modern Slavery, Capitalism, and Mass Incarceration. Cornell Law Review, 104(4), pp.899-990.

Haugaard, M. (2020). The faces of power, resistance and justification in a changing world. Journal of Political Power, 13(1), pp.1-5.

Hobbes, T. (2018). Leviathan. Minneapolis: Lerner Publishing Group.

Hodai, B. (2010). Freedom Forum CEO Tied to For-Profit Prisons. Fair, December 1. https://fair.org/media_criticism/freedom-forum-ceo-tied-to- for-profit-prisons/ [2020-12-12] Horan, K. (2017). Former Inmate Talks About Scabies, CoreCivic's Response. NewsChannel5, July 27. https://www.newschannel5.com/news/former-inmate-talks-about- scabies-corecivics-response [2020-12-06]. James, N. (2019). The First Step Act of 2018: An overview. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Jarldorn, M. (2019). Radically Rethinking Social Work in the Criminal (in) Justice System in Australia. Affilia, 35(3), pp.327-343.

Jayes, J. (2019). Securitization in the Heartland: For-Profit Immigration Detention. The Public, April. http://publici.ucimc.org/2019/04/securitization-in-the-heartland-for- profit-immigration-detention/ [2020-12-05].

Johnston, M. (2017). Secondary Data Analysis: A Method of which the Time Has Come. Qualitative And Quantitative Methods In Libraries, 3(3), pp.619-626.

Klimašauskaitė, A. & Tal, A. (2020). Faces of power in Integrated Coastal Zone Management: Case studies of Eilat and Aqaba. Ocean & Coastal Management, 185, pp.1-10. Lanard, N. (2020). Prison CEOs Say They Had No Clue Guards Pepper- Sprayed Hundreds of Immigration Detainees. Mother Jones, July 13. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/07/prison-ceos-say-they- had-no-clue-guards-pepper-sprayed-hundreds-of-immigration-detainees/ [2020-12-10].

Lentin, R. (2020). Incarceration, Disavowal and Ireland’s Prison Industrial Complex. The Carceral Network in Ireland, pp.259-278.

Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. 2nd ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Malnes, R., Midgaard, K. & Torhell, E. (2006). De politiska idéernas historia. Second ed., Lund: Studentlitteratur. Mamun, S., Li, X., Horn, B. & Chermak, J. (2020). Private vs. public prisons? A dynamic analysis of the long-term tradeoffs between cost- efficiency and recidivism in the US prison system. Applied Economics, 52(41), pp.4499-4511.

Massey, D. (2019). Creating the exclusionist society: from the War on Poverty to the war on immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(1), pp.18-37.

Moffette, D., & Vadasaria, S. (2016). Uninhibited violence: race and the securitisation of immigration. Critical Studies on Security, 4 (3), pp. 291-305

Moore, A. (1999). Private Prisons: Quality Corrections At A Lower Cost. Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute, 240, pp.1-42.

Moreno, K. & Price, B.E. (2017) The social and political impact of the new (private) National Security: private actors in the securitization of immigration in the U.S. post 9/11. Crime Law and Social Change 67, pp. 353–376.

Moreno, K. (2018). Private Prisons and the Shift in Marketplace From the War on Drugs to the War on Terror. Advances in Public Policy and Administration, pp.86-101.

Mother Jones (2019). Inside the US Marshals’ Secretive, Deadly Detention Empire. Mother Jones, November/December Issue. https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/10/inside-the-us- marshals-secretive-deadly-detention-empire/ [2020-12-12].

Mulinari, S. & Vilhelmsson, A. (2019). Revisiting the pharmaceuticalisation of pandemic influenza using Lukes’ framework of power. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(2), pp.327-341.

Mumford, M., D. W. Schanzenbach, & R. Nunn (2016). The Economics of Private Prison. Washington, DC: Hamilton Project, pp. 1-7.

National Archives (2019). The Constitution: Amendments 11-27. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc- amendment-xiii [2020-12-14].

Nowell-Smith, G. & Hoare, Q. [ed.] (1971). Selections From Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

OnTheIssue (2020). OnTheIssue Every Political Leader on Every Issue. https://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm [2020-12-09] Ousey, G. & Kubrin, C. (2018) Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Contentious Issue. Annual Review of Criminology, (1), pp. 63-84

Petrie, B. (2019). Lawsuit Claims GEO Guards Illegally Separated 13 Fathers And Sons. Texas Public Radio, May 29. https://www.tpr.org/news/2019-05-29/lawsuit-claims-geo-guards- illegally-separated-13-fathers-and-sons [2020-12-15].

Phillips, K. (2017). Thousands of ICE detainees claim they were forced into labor, a violation of anti-slavery laws. The Washington Post, March. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- nation/wp/2017/03/05/thousands-of-ice-detainees-claim-they-were- forced-into-labor-a-violation-of-anti-slavery-laws/ [2020-12-15]. Rabinow, P., Faubion, J., & Hurley, R. (2000). Essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984. Vol. 3, Power. New York: The New Press.

Reynolds, L. (2019). Not Up for Discussion: Applying Lukes’ Power Model to the Study of Health System Corruption Comment on "We Need to Talk About Corruption in Health Systems". International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 8(12), pp.723-726.

Sarabi, B. (2002). ALEC in the House: Corporate Bias in Criminal Justice Legislation. Prison Legal News, January 15.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2002/jan/15/alec-in-the-house- corporate-bias-in-criminal-justice-legislation/ [2020-12-07]. Schmitt, J., Warner, K., & Gupta, S. (2010). The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration. Center for Economic and Policy Research, pp.1–19. Semins, J. (2020). CoreCivic Employees Wages Lawsuit Settles for $3.2M. Top Class Actions, October 15. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit- settlements/employment-labor/corecivic-employees-wages-lawsuit- settles-for-3-2m/ [2020-12-09]. Senate Bill, 1070. (2010). State of Arizona Senate, forty ninth legislature, second regular session.

Sullivan, L. (2010). Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law. npr, October 28. https://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison- economics-help-drive-ariz-immigration- law?t=1606748514364&t=1609088814525&t=1609089099559 [2020- 12-10].

The GEO Group (2017) Annual Report 2017. Boca Raton, FL: The GEO Group, Inc.

The GEO Group (2018) Political Activity And Lobbying Report (2018). Boca Raton, FL: The GEO Group, Inc.

The GEO Group (2019) Annual Report 2019. Boca Raton, FL: The GEO Group, Inc.

The GEO Group (2020a) 10-K Annual Report. Boca Raton, FL: The GEO Group, Inc.

The GEO Group (2020b). The GEO Group - Official Website. https://www.geogroup.com/ [2020-12-14].

The World Bank (2020). GDP Growth (Annual %) - United States | Data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations= US [2020-12-03].

Tosh, S. (2020). Drug prohibition and the criminalisation of immigrants: The compounding of drug war disparities in the United States deportation regime. International Journal of Drug Policy, pp.1.9.

United Nations (2020). THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals [2020-12-04].

Van Dijk, T. A. (2016). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), pp.249-283.

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Three volumes. New York: Bedmeister.

White, W., Pena, A. & Weiler, S. (2020). Going private: Are private prisons cost‐saving options for states?. Growth and Change, 51(3), pp.1000- 1016. Wilce, R. & Graves, L. (2014). ALEC Exposed. Human Rights Magazine, July 01. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_ma gazine_home/2014_vol_40/vol_40_no_2_civil_rights/alec_exposed/ [2020-12-15].

Wright, P. (2007). Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration. New York: W.W. Norton.

Appendix Appendix 1: OnTheIssue – Questions and Answers Presentation of what OnTheIssue’s questions on crime, immigration and drugs entail and what the issues respective results mean. The following information is retrieved from OnTheIssue (2020).

Stricter punishment reduces crime

This question is looking for your views on whether stricter enforcement and mandatory sentencing is the solution to crime. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:

• Stricter penalties reduce all crimes • 'Broken Windows' laws work • Reduce judicial discretion • Equivalent punishment for the taking of a life. • Some people are bad and should be removed from society. • The concept of rehabilitation is not applicable to prison.

POSITIONS

• Strongly Support means you believe: 'Three Strikes' laws put dangerous repeat offenders where they belong - behind bars, for life. And the Death Penalty gets rid of them once and for all. Mandatory sentencing and strict enforcement make sure that judges don't let off criminals too easily. • Support means you believe: Keep death penalty and 'Three Strikes' laws on the books because they seem to be effective, but consider ways to deal with special circumstances so we can avoid horror stories of inappropriate imprisonment. • Oppose means you believe: Strict enforcement of pre-determined sentencing threatens civil rights and should be used cautiously. Police, courts and prisons should focus on effective enforcement rather than strict enforcement. The death penalty should be used with extreme caution, if at all. • Strongly Oppose means you believe: Judicial discretion should not be diminished by formulaic sentencing like 'Three Strikes.' Let judges and juries decide what penalties to apply in each case. The death penalty should be abolished as "cruel and unusual punishment".

Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens

This question is looking for your views on both legal and illegal immigration; whether we should open our borders or patrol them more tightly and lower the legal immigrant count. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:

• Legal immigration should be increased • We spend enough on patrolling the Mexican border • Grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who have resided here for 5 years

POSITIONS

• Strongly Support means you believe: Immigration restrictions are basically racist because they keep out Hispanics and other non-whites. We should reform US immigration laws and use them to increase our diversity and cultural tolerance. Social services should be offered to all residents of the United States regardless of immigration status. Illegal aliens should be offered amnesty if they prove themselves as productive members of society. • Support means you believe: The government should make few restrictions on immigration. If the number of immigrants is too high, establish an immigration fee and raise it until the number of immigrants is acceptable. Or change the immigration quotas by some other method. • Oppose means you believe: Maintain legal immigration while enforcing against illegal immigration. Tighten our borders - decrease substantially or stop all immigration so we can address domestic problems. • Strongly Oppose means you believe: We should strictly enforce our immigration laws by increasing border patrols, and we should crack down on illegal immigrants already in the US by deportation and by

removing all their social benefits. In the long run, we should decrease immigration.

• Legal immigration should be increased • We spend enough on patrolling the Mexican border • Grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who have resided here for 5 years

Marijuana is a gateway drug

This question is looking for your views on the War on Drugs. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:

• Never legalize marijuana • Punish Drug Users • Support and win the War on Drugs • Marijuana usage leads to cocaine & narcotics usage • Permanently ban medicinal marijuana • Use the Army and/or the Coast Guard to stop drugs at our borders • Just Say No!

POSITIONS

• Strongly Support means you believe: Drug use is immoral and drugs poison our youth and our society. We should fight the Drug War using all reasonable means - Just Say No!4 • Support means you believe: The Drug War is winnable if we invest enough resources. We should do whatever we have to do: More police, more border patrols, more intervention abroad, more prison terms, more prisons. • Oppose means you believe: We should have regulated decriminalization. Medical marijuana might be legalized, for example, as might clean hypodermic needles. Our drug policy should be reformed, with less criminal penalties and more drug abuse clinics.

4 Just Say No! Was a campaign as a part of The War on Drugs started by first lady Nancy Reagan. The campaign began in the 1980s and aimed to encourage the youth to say no to drugs (OnTheIssue 2020).

• Strongly Oppose means you believe: The Drug War should be ended. It has failed, condemning a 'Lost Generation' of blacks and Hispanics to prison and criminal records. End it now like we ended alcohol Prohibition, and organized crime and drug-related crime will decrease like it did when Prohibition ended.

This question is looking for your views on the War on Drugs. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:

Clarification on how the answers are decided:

How do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose"). The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters. If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate. If you give a general answer of Support vs. Oppose, VoteMatch can more accurately match a candidate with your stand. Don't worry so much about getting the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question -- like candidates!

• Strongly Support means you believe in the principle of single-payer government-run healthcare. • Support means you believe in practical progress toward universal health coverage. • Oppose means you believe in practical progress towards healthcare availability via the free market. • Strongly Oppose means you believe in the principle that government should not be involved with providing healthcare.

Appendix 2: Results from the Political Contribution Investigation

Fornili CoreCivic The Geo Group

2016 2016 Marsha Politican Pat Tiberi John Hoeven Jeff Denham Claudia Tenney Tim Walberg Blackburn Amount Contributed in US 1000 2000 3000 5000 5000 5000 Dollars Stricter Punismhent Oppose Support Support Support No Opinion Oppose Reduces Crime Pathway to citizenship for Oppose Strongly Oppose Oppose Neutral Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose illegal aliens Marijuana is a Strongly Support Strongly Support Strongly Support Strongly Support Strongly Support Support gateway drug

2017 2017

Politican Bob Corker Henry Cuellar Orrin Hatch Ben Ray Luján Marco Rubio John Culberson

Amount Contributed in US 2500 1500 2500 2500 10000 5000 Dollars Stricter Punismhent Support Oppose Support Neutral Support Support Reduces Crime Pathway to citizenship for Oppose Support Oppose Strongly Support Oppose Strongly Oppose illegal aliens Marijuana is a Strongly Support Strongly Support Strongly Support Strongly Oppose Strongly Support Support gateway drug

2018 2018

Politican Kevin Yonder Cory Gardner Dean Heller Ted Cruz Dwight Evans Mike Coffman Amount Contributed in US 5000 2500 2500 5000 1000 2500 Dollars Stricter Punismhent Support Neutral Oppose Strongly Support Strongly Oppose Strongly Support Reduces Crime Pathway to citizenship for Strongly Oppose Oppose Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose Support Strongly Oppose illegal aliens Marijuana is a Neutral Strongly Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Neutral gateway drug 2019 2019

Politican John Cornyn Sanford Bishop Tim Scott Jerry Moran Dan Crenshaw No Data Amount Contributed in US 5000 3500 5000 5000 2500 No Data Dollars Stricter Punismhent Support Oppose Oppose Support Support No Data Reduces Crime Pathway to citizenship for Strongly Oppose Support Oppose Oppose Strongly Oppose No Data illegal aliens Marijuana is a Strongly Support Neutral Strongly Support Strongly Support Support No Data gateway drug 2020 2020 Cindy Hyde- Politican Kevin McCarthy Kelly Loeffler Dan Sullivan Mike Rogers Steve Daines Smith Amount Contributed in US 5000 1000 1000 2500 5000 2500 Dollars Stricter Punismhent Support Support Strongly Support Strongly Support Neutral Neutral Reduces Crime Pathway to citizenship for Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose Oppose Strongly Oppose illegal aliens Marijuana is a Strongly Support Strongly Support Strongly Support Oppose Strongly Support Strongly Oppose gateway drug

Republican Democrat