THE PRISON INDUSTRY
Mapping Private Sector Players
PDF | Press Release
MAy 2020
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Foreword
III. What’s New this Year
IV. Sector Summary & Developments
V. Data
VI. Methodology
VII. Acknowledgements
Introduction
Every year, the U.S. spends more than $80 billion incarcerating 2.3 million people in federal and state prisons, county jails, youth correctional facilities, and immigration detention centers. Of that, tens of billions are then funneled into the private sector through vendor contracts with healthcare providers, food suppliers, commissary merchants, prison contractors, and countless others. And if that was not enough, these corporations have also devised strategies to extract billions more from the communities supporting incarcerated loved ones.
Hidden from public view, these private corporations have fully monetized crime and punishment with the help of their government partners. Whether they draw money straight out of the pockets of incarcerated people and their support networks or from taxpayer coffers, they put profit over everything with grave consequences. And the COVID-19 pandemic has only further highlighted their cruelty. As the virus rampages through prisons and jails, these corporations have continued to prey on the communities decimated by our carceral crisis.
This report exposes over 4,100 corporations that profit from the devastating mass incarceration of our nation’s marginalized communities—disproportionately those of color and with low income. Growing in scope and breadth each year, it continues to serve as the largest lens into the prison industry ever published. Although this report still far from covers all the private sector corporations in this space, it captures all its major players.
Importantly, while this report exposes the private corporations profiting off mass incarceration, this report is not meant to distract from the government’s critical role in both perpetuating it and exploiting those it touches. Tackling the private industry will not alone end mass incarceration, but it is an essential step. Private corporations helped build our punishment system and continue to support its expansion by donating to tough-on-crime political candidates, shifting costs onto those it targets, offering agencies lucrative partnerships, recruiting former government officials, and more. To reimagine and restore justice, we must expel the private sector and all financial interests from the legal system.
At Worth Rises, our hope is that advocates, litigators, journalists, investors, and the public will use this report to further understand the expansive nature of the prison industry and familiarize themselves with its corporate players. This report should serve as a resource in the fight against the commercialization of our legal system and endeavor to build a world free of prisons and jails.
Foreword
I spent more than 24 years in prison. I saw how corporations exploited people in the closed prison market—from telephone calls to commissary to labor. We were a captive audience without a say in what were often monopoly contracts. They could gouge us or offer terrible service without ever worrying about losing business.
Over the years, I worked tirelessly to challenge these corporations and their practices, filing grievances and consumer complaints, and helping others do the same. Being a part of the solution offered me a sense of purpose, and the small victories always invigorated my passion.
So, when I was released, I was excited to work with Worth Rises as a researcher for The Prison Industry: Mapping Private Sector Players report. It allowed me to continue the work I was doing on the inside, fact-finding to expose the corporations exploiting people whose lives have been irreparably turned upside down by mass incarceration—not just those behind bars, but also our families.
But as I scrolled through company websites, product catalogs, and earnings reports, I grew angry. The profiteering runs even deeper than I imagined, and it seemed unrealistic to think that there was anything I could do to stop these corporations from preying on my people—poor people and black and brown people.
One day, after I finished working, I decided I had had enough. After decades of dealing with these corporations inside, I wanted it to be over and to live my life anew. I closed the computer and thought ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ But my mind never really ran quiet, and one afternoon I recalled the words of Howard Thurman, “Do not be silent; there is no limit to the power that may be released through you.”
At that moment, I realized the importance of this report—and, that I was not alone. By bringing these corporations and their exploitation into the light, we are giving people the tools to stand up to these corporations and win. I am now part of a growing team committed to tearing down the prison industry.
I will continue to help those whose lives have been forever changed by mass incarceration overcome their exploitation and abuse at the hands of private corporations. I hope that you will use this report to do the same.
Robert Rose III
The Realism of Alt-Justice, Orlando Smith, San Quentin State Prison - CA
Note From The Authors
All engagement is not equal, but all engagement is an opportunity for action.
The inclusion of a corporation in this report does not itself signify anything about the corporation’s values or even perspective with respect to the travesty of our carceral crisis. Due to the vast reach of our legal system, corporations have, at times, found themselves unintentionally implicated in the prison industry without even knowing it. It is for this reason that we chose not to simply publish a list of names, but rather a rich data set that includes important corporate information and our sources.
The data provided in this report should serve as a launching pad for further exploration. Readers should engage and analyze the data but follow up with their own investigations before making decisions about what approach to take in challenging each corporation’s involvement in the prison industry.
To organizers and advocates, we hope this report will help you identify targets for corporate campaigns, layer in an understanding of public-private partnerships, and build power among the public through exposure and education.
To elected officials, we hope this report will help you challenge the corporate exploitation of vulnerable communities and turn down political contributions from corporations looking to expand the reach of our punishment system.
To litigators, we hope this report will help you identify potential targets for litigation using consumer and other types of commercial law and return extracted resources to exploited people.
To journalists, we hope this report will serve as a starting point for your critical coverage of the detrimental impact and expansive grasp of the prison industry and its corporate players.
To investors and financial advisors, we hope this report will help you screen your investment portfolios for exposure to the prison industry and determine what form of economic activism—shareholder engagement or divestment—is appropriate for each corporation in your portfolio.
To artists, we hope this report inspires you to create works that amplify the harms caused by the commercialization of the legal system and reach masses often inaccessible to other advocates.
We look forward to seeing your action. #PeopleOverProfit
What’s New This Year
This year, the most critical innovation to The Prison Industry: Mapping Private Sector Players is the inclusion of a harm score for each publicly traded and investment firm-owned corporation. The harm score measures the engagement of each corporation in human rights violations along three criteria: the salience or gravity of the violation, their responsibility for the violation, and their responsiveness to advocacy engagement. Each criterion was measure on a scale from 1 to 5, making the overall harm score range 3 to 15. Corporations that scored more than 10 points are recommended for divestment.
Also new this year is the inclusion of a marker for the use or support of prison labor. Corporations flagged for supporting prison labor either directly use prison labor or participate in supply chains that include prison labor. While there are likely more corporations that support prison labor, the corporations flagged in this report as supporting prison labor have verifiable, recent sources for their support.
The authors have also made the following additions and updates to this year’s edition of The Prison Industry: Mapping Private Sector Players.
Added individual entries for more than 100 private equity and other firms invested in prison profiteers
Added the names of lead executive for publicly traded and investment firm-owned corporations
Added available lobbying expenditures and updated corporate campaign contributions made by private corporations that derive all their revenues from the prison industry
Updated all financials with the most recently available data as of year-end 2019
Continued research into the prison industry and added newly identified corporations
Vetted and, as appropriate, added corporations submitted to Worth Rises
This year’s edition of The Prison Industry: Mapping Private Sector Players covers 4,135 corporations, including:
385 publicly traded corporations, 95 of which are recommended for divestment, and
118 investment firms that own prison profiteers, 61 of which are recommended for divestment.
Sector Summary & Developments
DATA
Methodology
I. Corporate Identification
A. State Correctional Spending
The authors analyzed the annual corrections spending of five states, each of which has the largest incarcerated population within its geographic region: California (West;129,593), Florida (Southeast; 101,424), New York (Northeast; 51,727), Ohio (Midwest; 52,233), and Texas (Southwest; 163,909). From the annual spending data of each state, the authors included the name of every for-profit, private vendor paid $150,000 or more by the state’s correctional agency. By focusing on the largest correctional systems in each region, the authors captured not just the largest national players, but also the largest regional players. State detail and sources:
For California, the authors analyzed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s CY 2018 spending using the State Contracting and Procurement Registration System (caleprocure.ca.gov/pages/public-search.aspx).
For Florida, the authors analyzed the Florida Department of Corrections’ FY 2017 spending using the State of Florida Vendor/Payee Payments System (fs.fldfs.com/dispub2/newvpymt4.shtml) and contracts, grant awards, and purchase orders using the Florida Accountability Contract Tracking System (facts.fldfs.com/Search/ContractSearch.aspx).
For New York, the authors analyzed the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s FY 2017 spending using New York Open Book – Spending (wwe2.osc.state.ny.us/transparency/spending/spndMain.cfm). The authors also analyzed current contracts as of February of 2018 using New York Open Book – Contracts (wwe2.osc.state.ny.us/transparency/contracts/contractsearch.cfm) and included any for-profit, private vendor with a contract valued at $1,000,000 or more.
For Ohio, the authors analyzed the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections’ FY 2017 spending using Ohio Checkbook (ohiotreasurer.gov/Transparency/Ohios-Online-Checkbook).
For Texas, the authors analyzed the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s FY 2016 spending using the Texas State Spending Transparency Visualizations (comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/spending/visualizations.php) and included any for-profit, private vendor that was paid $50,000 or more.
B. Federal Spending
Correctional Spending
The authors reviewed the U.S. Department of Justice spending data available at USAspending.gov (www.usaspending.gov/). However, this source does not cleanly parse out spending specific to the Federal Bureau of Prisons nor does it aggregate total agency payments by vendor. Consequently, the authors could not conduct a systematic analysis of federal correctional spending to identify for-profit, private vendors paid $150,000 or more by the Federal Bureau of Prisons as intended. It is possible that vendors to the Federal Bureau of Prisons are underrepresented in this report.
Immigration Detention Spending
The authors analyzed the annual immigration detention spending of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from July 2017 to June 2018 using GovSpend (www.govspend.com/) and the agency’s current contracts as of July of 2018 compiled by Sludge (readsludge.com/2018/07/06/who-is-making-money-from-ice-in-your-state/) and included the name of every for-profit, private vendor paid $150,000 or more by the agency.
C. Corrections and Law Enforcement Associations
The authors reviewed and included the corporate sponsors, partners, affiliates, and members of national and state corrections and law enforcement associations as well as the vendors listed in their professional marketplaces where available and accessible as of April 2018. More specifically, the authors reviewed the American Correctional Association, Association of State Correctional Administrators, American Jail Association, American Parole and Probation Association, Association of Women Executives in Corrections, National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice, National Organization of Hispanics in Criminal Justice, National Sheriffs’ Association, National Correctional Industries Association, Corrections Technology Association, Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, Integrated Justice Information Systems Institute, and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System.
D. Advocacy Resources, Media Articles, and General Search
The authors reviewed hundreds of reports, articles, and resources published by other criminal justice and immigration detention organizations and reputable media outlets covering the prison industrial complex and its corporate players. The authors also conducted broader web searches using keywords that produced additional corporate names.
E. Other
For simplicity, the authors aggregated or omitted certain types of corporate correctional vendors:
The authors aggregated local car dealership franchises under the corporate car manufacturer.
The authors excluded single or limited partner medical and legal practices, single or limited partner property realty corporations, and hotels or lodging used for staff travel.
II. Corporate Data & Sources
Most information provided for each listed corporation was taken directly from its website or the online presence of its subsidiary or parent company. State budget data, press releases, advocacy reports, and media articles also provided critical information about the listed corporations. The source columns provide the major information sources for each listed corporation.
A. Active Brand
Demarcates corporations that are still active under the listed corporate name and those that are not. Corporations marked “N” are no longer operating under the listed corporate name but may have been acquired and rolled into another corporation. See “Notes” for details.
B. Headquarters Location
State or country of corporate headquarters of the listed corporation.
C. Number of Employees
Number of people employed by the listed corporation.
D. Year Founded
Year the listed corporation or its direct predecessor(s) was founded.
E. Year Last Acquired
Year the listed corporation was last acquired either directly or indirectly through the acquisition of a parent company by either an industry competitor or financial investor (e.g. private equity firm). See “Parent Company,” “Owner/Major Investor,” and “Notes” for more information.
F. Corporate Structure
Lead Executive
The leading executive of the listed corporation (e.g. chief executive officer, chairman, founder, partner, etc.).
Owner/Major Investor
Any major private equity investors of the listed corporation. Some major investors may hold a minority stake. See “Notes” for acquisition and investment information.
Parent Company
The parent company of the listed corporation if it is a subsidiary of a larger corporation or holding company. See “Notes” for acquisition information.
Parent Stock Ticker
The stock ticker of the listed corporation or its parent company if publicly traded on any international stock market.
Parent Public Exposure
The listed corporation’s level of public exposure based of its parent company or investor:
Tier 1a - Publicly Traded - Targeted Correctional Exposure: Corporations that are publicly traded on any international stock market and have a business segment targeting the prison industrial complex in their business model or through marketing, advertising, or sponsorships.
Tier 1b - Publicly Traded - Other: Corporations that are publicly traded on any international stock market and are presumed to be unintentionally or unknowingly engaged in the prison industry.
Tier 2 – Investment Firm-Owned: Corporations that are privately held and owned or heavily invested in by private equity and other investment firms.
Tier 3 - Large Privately-Owned, Requires Outside Financing: Corporations that are privately held and have or are estimated to have $200 million or more in annual revenues and likely require corporate financing for growth.
Tier 4 - Small Privately-Owned: Corporations that are privately held and have or are estimated to have less than $200 million in annual revenues.
G. Business Sectors
Using publicly available information, the authors assigned each listed corporation to at least one sector and one subsector. For corporations that operate in more than one sector or subsector, the authors assigned a secondary sector and subsector. For corporations that operate in more than two distinct sectors or subsectors, the authors listed the two most dominant. Because not all business models fit neatly into the defined sectors or subsectors, the authors encourage readers to delve further into the business models of corporations that draw their interest.
H. Immigration Detention Engagement
Demarcates corporations engaged in immigration detention.
I. Support of Prison Labor
Demarcates corporations that use or support prison labor, either directly or as part of their supply chain. Importantly, readers should not assume that a corporation rejects the use of prison labor simply because they are not marked as supporters prison labor. The authors only flagged corporations if there is recent, publicly available evidence of support for prison labor. The true list of corporations that support or benefit from prison labor may be much longer.
J. Harm Score
Measures the engagement of each corporation in human rights violations along three criteria: the salience or gravity of the violation, their responsibility for the violation, and their responsiveness to advocacy engagement. Each criterion is scored on a scale from 1 to 5, making the overall harm score range 3 to 15. To score each corporation the authors used a screen developed by the Investigate Project at the American Friends Services Committee available at https://investigate.afsc.org/divest. Because scoring is subjective, the authors at Worth Rises calibrated internally and, consequently, the resulting scores may not reflect the views of the American Friends Services Committee.
K. Divestment
Demarcates corporations recommended for divestment based on a harm score of more than 10.
L. Financials
The authors collected financial information from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, annual reports, and FactSet for publicly traded corporations; acquisition announcements for acquired corporations and parent companies; and PrivCo for privately held corporations, as available. FactSet maintains a financial database of public corporations for members. PrivCo maintains a financial database of private corporation for members.
Annual Revenues ($Mn)
The actual or estimated annual revenues of the listed corporation in USD million for the last available year. Figures are specific to the listed corporation, not its parent company or a subsidiary. Revenue figures include all reported revenues for the listed corporation and should not be interpreted as revenues generated specifically from the prison industrial complex.
Revenue Year
Fiscal year of the reported revenue figure.
Prison Industry Revenue Only
Demarcates corporations with business models that are entirely dependent on the prison industry from those that are only partially engaged.
M. Political Spending Since 2010
Working with the National Institute on Money in Politics, the authors gathered data on lobbying expenditures and corporate campaign contributions made to federal and state candidates, major party committees, and ballot measure committees since 2010 by corporations that derive all their revenues from the prison industry. The data also includes contributions made to political campaigns in a few local races, namely city elections in Chicago, New York City, and Washington D.C. and supervisor elections in Orange County, California.
N. Notes
Any information detail that may add color beyond what the data already offers.
O. Sources
Website
Corporate website for the listed corporation.
Corrections
Source for proof of engagement in corrections for the listed corporation. Corrections sources may be references to the corporation’s general website, a specific page on its website, its relation to a subsidiary or parent in the data, a trusted advocacy report, a credible media article, or a corrections agency’s spending data.
Immigration Detention
Source for proof of engagement in immigration detention for the listed corporation. Immigration detention sources may be references to the corporation’s general website, a specific page on its website, its relation to a subsidiary or parent in the data, a trusted advocacy report, a credible media article, or an immigration agency’s spending data.
Prison Labor
Source for proof of engagement in prison labor for the listed corporation. Prison labor sources may be references to the corporation’s general website, a specific page on its website, its relation to a subsidiary or parent in the data, a trusted advocacy report, a credible media article, or a correctional industries’ website.
Financials
Source of financial information for the listed corporation.
Other
Any other direct source relevant to the listed corporation. The most common other sources are press releases providing acquisition details, proof of the sponsorship of correctional or law enforcement associations, and other media coverage.
III. Limitations
A. Corporate Identification
Regional, Size, and Agency Coverage
This report systematically looked at the correctional spending of five states and, in large part, only included corporations collecting over $150,000 annually. Looking broader into other states and local agencies or lowering the payment threshold would likely produce thousands of additional corporate names. As discussed above, the report is also limited in its coverage of correctional vendors serving the federal government.
Accurate not Exhaustive
The authors chose to include only corporations that they could determine with confidence are currently engaged in the prison industry whether as standalone corporations, active subsidiaries, or absorbed predecessor corporations. There are lists that charge major publicly traded consumer products corporations with profiting from prison labor. And while likely accurate accusations at the time of their publishing, they may now be outdated. Choosing to preserve the integrity of the corporate identification process, the authors have decided against including these corporations without additional corroboration of their continued engagement.
Obscurity of Prison Labor
Given the lack of transparency in corporate supply chains, this report is likely limited in its coverage of corporations benefiting from prison labor. However, it does capture suppliers of raw materials to correctional industries, an aspect of prison labor that is often overlooked, given that their purchases are reflected in state spending data. Unfortunately, state revenue data, which would capture corporations that consume products created using prison labor, is not readily accessible.
B. Corporate Data
Dominance of Privately Held Corporations
The overwhelming majority of corporations that operate in the prison industrial complex are privately held. Thus, collecting information about their business models, corporate structures, and financial performance is incredibly difficult. Accordingly, there are gaps in corporate data for many of the listed corporations, including major players in the prison industrial complex.
Limitations of Sector Designations
In an effort to organize the thousands of corporations that operate in the prison industrial complex, the authors created a set of 12 industry sectors plus investors and a structure of subsectors that fits within them. However, not every corporation neatly fits into one of these sectors. While the authors have made their best effort to appropriately categorize every listed corporation, they encourage readers to follow the provided sources for clarity.
Underestimate of Political Influence
Political contributions are generally difficult to trace. The authors worked with the National Institute on Money in Politics to analyze the political spending of the corporations that derive all their revenue from the prison industry. While the spending data captures campaign contributions to federal and state candidates, major party committees, and ballot measure committees, as well as lobbying spending, it is short on contributions made to local campaigns and initiatives. The data also omits corporate contributions made to political action committees and individual campaign contributions made by affiliated corporate executives, two common vehicles for political contributions. Accordingly, the authors warn that the political spending figure is likely to be a significant underestimate.
Acknowledgements
Worth Rises graciously acknowledges everyone whose time, energy, and passion went into the development of this year’s report. We specifically thank Connor McCleskey and Robert Rose for their research contributions and editing assistance. We thank the Investigate Project at the American Friends Services Committee, and more specifically Dalit Baum, for their leadership around divestment theory as it relates to the prison industry. We thank the National Institute of Money in Politics, and more specifically Pete Quist and Denise Roth Barber, for their partnership on political spending data.
Notable Players
Bail: Endeavor Capital/Aladdin Bail Bonds, Fairfax Financial, Libre by Nexus, Tokio Marine
Community surveillance: Apax Partners/Attenti, CoreCivic/Avalon, GEO Group, The/BI, Libre by Nexus, Track Group
Developments
Since 2018, the bail bonds industry has spent more than $3.5 million to prevent the implementation of SB 10 in California, which would have replaced cash bail with a concerning risk assessment-based system. The measure will appear on the 2020 ballot.
In July 2019, the Federal Bureau of Prisons began implementing provisions of the First Step Act that would move more people to private halfway houses and increase the number of people required to wear an electronic monitor after they are released. The legislation was supported by the largest private prison corporations, which have expanded into the community corrections business and are slated to benefit significantly from the implementation of these provisions.
In March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread into prisons and jails, major electronic monitoring corporations like Attenti rebranded their products as tools to monitor people’s compliance with quarantine orders.
Notable Players
AECOM, Hill International, HOK, Johnson Controls, McCarthy Building Companies, Turner Construction
Developments
In August 2019, activists successfully pressured Los Angeles County to cancel a proposed $2.2 billion contract with McCarthy Building Companies to construct the state’s largest jail and mental health facility.
In October 2019, the New York City Council awarded a $8.7 billion plan to close the infamous jail on Rikers Island by 2026 and replace it with four newly constructed jails to a joint venture between AECOM and Hill International.
Notable Players
Amazon, Equivant, Microsoft, Northrop Gumman, Palantir
Developments
Throughout 2019, immigration advocates, Whole Foods employees, and musicians called on Amazon to cut ties with U.S. Immigration Customs & Enforcement.
In February 2020, organizations and foundations that formerly supported the development and implementation of risk assessment tools in efforts to end cash bail reversed their position and joined a growing chorus of advocates warning against the use of risk assessment tools as they further promote racial inequalities.
Notable Players
Bob Barker, Kanders & Company/Safariland, Stanley Black & Decker, VF Corp
Developments
In July 2019, activists successfully pressured the Whitney Museum of Art to remove Warren B. Kanders, owner of Safariland, from his position as vice chairman.
Notable Players
American Securities/TouchPay, HIG Capital/Access Corrections, NIC, Platinum Equity/JPay, Western Union
Developments
Notable Players
Aramark, Compass Group, The, Elior Group, HIG Capital/Keefe Group, Trinity Services, Union Supply, Sodexo
Developments
In June 2019, San Francisco became the first major city to eliminate commissary markups.
Throughout 2019, farmers, workers, and students continued to protest Aramark, The Compass Group, and Sodexo—which together hold 77.5% of the food services market in the U.S., including prisons and jails—as part of Community Coalition for Real Meals.
Notable Players
Armor Correctional Health, Centene/Centurion, Corizon, Correct Rx, NaphCare, Wellpath, Wexford
Developments
In February 2020, more than 150 people incarcerated at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman filed a class action lawsuit against the state department of correction and its healthcare vendor, Centurion, owned by Centene, contesting the horrific conditions and care at the prison.
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic entered prisons and jails and quickly overwhelmed correctional health systems. As of April 2020, public health experts predicted that the virus will kill as many as 23,000 incarcerated people in the U.S.
Notable Players
CoreCivic, Emerald Correctional, G4S, GEO Group, The, LaSalle Southwest, Management & Training Center (MTC ), Sodexo
Developments
In June 2019, after a sustained campaign by activists, eight major U.S. banks announced that they will no longer provide financing for The GEO Group or CoreCivic.
In August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued a series of regulations that allow immigration officials to eliminate immigration bonds and indefinitely detain adults and children in private facilities.
In October 2019, California passed a law intended to ban private prisons and immigration detention centers by 2028. However, the law contains significant loopholes that may allow private prison corporations to continue operating in the state.
In April 2020, Fitch Rating downgraded CoreCivic’s credit rating.
Notable Players
Akima Global Services, Lexipol, Defense Technology, G4S, Securitas
Developments
Notable Players
Programs: Corrective Education Co., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Management & Training Center (MTC), Pearson/Certiport
Labor: 3M, Air Liquide, Berkshire Hathway
Developments
In March 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that incarcerated workers in the state’s correctional industries will produce hand sanitizer to combat COVID-19. At least 40 other states have since also used incarcerated workers to produce hand sanitizer, protective equipment, and other products to stop the spread of the virus.
Notable Players
CenturyLink, American Securities/Global Tel Link (GTL), HIG Capital/ICSolutions, Legacy Inmate, PayTel, Platinum Equity/Securus & JPay, Unisys
Developments
In April 2019, advocates successfully blocked a proposed merger between Securus and ICSolutions under review at the Federal Communications Commission.
In May 2019, New York City officially became the first major city to make phone calls free for people in jail when it implemented legislation, hard-fought by advocates, requiring it do so.
In August 2019, Pennsylvania’ State Employees Retirement System turned down a planned $150 million investment with Platinum Equity due to its ownership of Securus.
In February 2020, the Federal Communications Commission ordered cellphone carriers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for selling user location data to Securus.
Notable Players
G4S, GEO Group, The, NFI Group/Motor Coach Industries, PTS of America, CoreCivic/TransCor America
Developments
Notable Players
American Securities, Apax Partners, Assured Guaranty/BlueMountain Capital, Bank of America, Blackrock, Fidelity, HIG Capital, J.P. Morgan, Platinum Equity, U.S. Bancorp, Vanguard, Wells Fargo
Developments
In June 2019, under sustained advocacy pressure, eight major U.S. banks announced that they will no longer provide financing for The GEO Group or CoreCivic. While a major victory, it is important to note that these banks still finance public construction projects, including prisons and jails.