THE CORRECTIONS
CORPORATION OF AMERICA
HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Corazón de Tucson | January 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................. 2
THE PRISON INDUSTRY........................................................................ 2
We are families and community
members organized to defend
our civil and human rights to
create equality and justice in
our communities. We have the
vision of living in a just world,
free from all forms of
discrimination and oppression.

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA ................ 3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...................................................................... 4

FINDINGS .............................................................. 6
CCA’S ‘CULTURE OF BRUTALITY’ .............................................. 6
PHYSICAL ABUSE .......................................................................................6
SEXUAL VIOLENCE ....................................................................................9
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE ........................................................................ 11
POOR CONDITIONS AND OVERCROWDING ................................ 13

CCA AND THE MANIPULATION OF PUBLIC POLICY ..........15
LOBBYING ................................................................................................... 16
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................ 17
AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL ...................... 19

CCA IN ARIZONA ...........................................................................20
CASE STUDY: ELOY DETENTION CENTER ................................... 21
CASE STUDY SB 1070’s PATH TO LAW ......................................... 25

CONCLUSION .............................................................. 29
ENDNOTES .................................................................. 31
corazondetucson@yahoo.com
P.O. Box 1004
Tucson, AZ 85701-1004
www.corazondetucson.org

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

I N T R O DU C T I O N
THE PRISON INDUSTRY
The United States maintains the largest prison system in the world, far outpacing its closest
international competitors in both prison population and incarceration rates.1 For the first
time in 2008, more than 1 in 100 adults in the U.S. were incarcerated in county, state or
federal correctional facilities.2 When probation and parole are included in the equation,
approximately 7.2 million people were under some form of correctional supervision by
2009.3 This represents 1 in 31 adults in the U.S., including 1 in 18 men, 1 in 27 Latinos/as
and 1 in 11 African Americans.4 As a result of the unprecedented scope of the prison
system, federal and state corrections combined now cost taxpayers approximately $68
billion per year.5
The alarming scale of incarceration in the U.S. today is the result of nearly three decades of
rapid expansion. Since 1980, the country has witnessed a 377 percent increase in total
prison population.6 Beginning in the late 1970s with the push to “get tough on crime,” the
enormous growth of the prison population has been driven in part by aggressive pursuit of
criminal charges against non-violent drug offenders as part of the “War on Drugs” and
harsh state and federal sentencing guidelines that have limited judicial discretion.7
Another important driving factor in the expansion of the prison population is the move
toward wholesale privatization of the prison system. While the overall prison population
grew by 17 percent between 1999 and 2010, the number of inmates held in private
facilities increased by 80 percent.8 In 2010, 128,195 individuals were incarcerated in
private facilities, representing eight percent of the total state and federal prison
population.9 Federal custodial agencies have pursued privatization most aggressively over
the past decade, resulting in a 784 percent increase in the number of federal prisoners held
in private facilities since 1999.10
The explosion of the private prison industry over the past decade has powerfully
incentivized the patterns of mass incarceration and harsh sentencing which define criminal
justice in the U.S. Today, private prisons constitute a $5 billion industry that exhausts
millions of dollars each year attempting to influence public policy through lobbying and
campaign contributions.11 With the government as their only customer, private prison
companies have developed a refined political strategy for generating revenue by
manipulating public policy to provide for expanded criminalization, longer sentences and
increased reliance on private prisons. This disturbing political calculation, coupled with
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 2

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

private prisons’ abysmal record of human rights abuses, exposes the danger that prison
privatization poses to the public and prisoners incarcerated in private facilities.

ISRAELI SUPREME COURT: PRIVATE PRISONS INHERENTLY FLAWED
While the prison industry has succeeded in convincing political leaders in the U.S.
to ignore a skeptical public and endorse the soundness of private prisons, other
nations have proved decidedly less friendly. In fact, Israel’s High Court of Justice
established an “international legal precedent” with a 2009 ruling that private
prisons are unconstitutional. The issue of prison privatization came to the fore
following a 2004 law passed by the Israeli legislature permitting the construction
and operation of private prisons. In 2005, the first contract for a privatelyconstructed and managed prison was granted, with operations slated to start in
2009.
Following years of deliberation, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled by an
overwhelming eight-to-one margin in November 2009 that private prisons were
unconstitutional due to the human rights violations the court considered inherent
to housing prisoners in private facilities. The petitioners in the case successfully
argued that while imprisonment necessarily entails the deprivation of liberty,
trusting this use of coercive force to a private entity would unnecessarily
compound prisoners’ suffering. Additionally, the justices agreed that private
prison operators’ push for efficiency and profit would inevitably lead to severe
violations of prisoners’ most fundamental rights. The Israeli court’s ruling that
human rights violations are endemic to private prisons should strike a resounding
blow against the logic underlying the privatization of prisons throughout the
world.
Sources: Zarchin, Tomer, “International Legal Precedent: No Private Prisons in Israel,” Haaretz, 20 November 2009.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/international-legal-precedent-no-private-prisons-in-israel-1.3774;
Preminger, Yonatan, “Incarceration for Profit,” Challenge Magazine, Issue 110, July/August 2008. http://www.challengemag.com/en/article__223/incarceration_for_profit

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
While there are some 50 private prison companies doing business in the U.S., the industry
is largely dominated by a few heavy hitters, chief among them the Corrections Corporation
of America (CCA).12 CCA is the nation’s oldest and largest private jailer with an annual
revenue of $1.7 billion.13 Founded in 1983, CCA now operates 80,000 beds at 66
correctional and detention facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia.14 In 2010,
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 3

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

one half of CCA’s revenue came from state contracts and another 43 percent from contracts
with three federal custodial agencies: the Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshall Service and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.15
In a 2003 report, Grassroots Leadership described CCA as “the leading participant in, and in
many ways the embodiment of…the incarceration of people for profit.”16 Indeed, CCA has
been the pioneer and trendsetter in the private prison industry, winning the first public
contract to manage a county jail from Hamilton County, Tennessee in 1984.17 CCA was
awarded its first state contracts in 1987 for two minimum-security facilities in Texas and
the nation’s first privately built and managed juvenile detention facility in Tennessee.18
From that point, CCA expanded rapidly, generating an annual revenue of $55 million in
1990, which ballooned to $120 million by 1994.19
The proceeding decade proved a tough one for CCA as a number of high-profile scandals
tarnished the reputation of private prisons. On the brink of bankruptcy in 2000, CCA was
salvaged by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which awarded the company two contracts
worth $760 million over ten years to house “criminal aliens.”20 From that point forward,
CCA came to rely heavily upon federal contracts for detaining and imprisoning non-citizens
to generate new revenue. Today, CCA has 14,556 beds in 14 facilities under contract from
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, incarcerating an average of 6,199 non-citizen
detainees on any given day.21 In 2009, nearly 20 percent of individuals in federal
immigration detention were housed in a CCA facility.22
At its immigration facilities as well as its penal facilities, CCA has been plagued for decades
by reports of inhumane conditions, inadequate supervision, substandard medical care, high
turnover among employees, abuse of prisoners by guards, failure to control violence in its
prisons and the deaths of prisoners at its facilities. In 2000, CCA undertook an effort to
remake the company’s image, restructuring, replacing its chief executive and even
removing the portraits of the company’s founders from the corporate headquarters.23 As
this report finds, these changes were purely cosmetic and CCA remains as shameless as
ever in its unconscionable treatment of prisoners.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report is based on an examination of public records regarding CCA and focuses in
particular on the company’s activities in Arizona. CCA represents itself as a responsible
public partner, concerned with prisoners’ well-being and public safety, engaged in
educating political leaders on best incarceration practices and committed to improving
local communities by promoting economic growth. These public claims are facile and
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 4

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

opportunistic lies. The disturbing truth, as this report finds, is that CCA is an unrepentant
profiteer, operating at the expense of prisoners, their families, local communities and the
public. Specifically, this report finds the following:


CCA perpetrates brutal and systematic abuses of prisoners’ rights.

The abuse of prisoners and violation of fundamental standards of human dignity is a
pervasive and systemic problem throughout CCA’s network of facilities. This report
examines four categories of prisoner abuse and neglect: (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual
violence, (3) medical negligence and (4) poor conditions and overcrowding. The
mistreatment encompassed by these four categories includes shocking degrees of cruelty
and negligence, which cause extensive and unnecessary suffering and far too often have
resulted in the death of inmates at CCA facilities. The conditions at CCA facilities amount to
a “culture of brutality” that affects thousands of inmates at dozens of facilities nationwide.


CCA unscrupulously manipulates public policy to maximize its profit.

Prison privatization creates perverse incentives for prison operators to intervene in the
political process, throwing their weight behind any legislative proposal which sends more
people to prison for longer terms. CCA is the undisputed industry leader when it comes to
securing new contracts and promoting favorable legislation by exerting its influence within
federal and state governments. CCA has employed a three-pronged strategy to achieve its
political aims: (1) lobbying, (2) campaign contributions and (3) membership in the
American Legislative Exchange Council. Unconcerned with the broad social, economic or
political consequences of the legislation it supports, CCA has shamelessly manipulated
public policy to increase its revenue with no regard for the impact on communities, families
and inmates.


CCA’s prisons and political efforts severely damage the health of the communities
in which it does business.

Communities across Arizona have suffered as a result of CCA’s presence in the state. The
Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona exemplifies the negative impact that CCA facilities
have on families and communities. The Eloy Detention Center has accumulated an
embarrassing human rights record, exacted a heavy toll on the families affected by
detention and done little to improve the local community that surrounds the facility. At the
state level, CCA played a crucial role in winning passage of SB 1070, state legislation that
would sweep immigrants into federal custody and eventually into CCA’s immigration
detention centers. Even though not fully implemented, SB 1070 has displaced tens of
thousands of people, severely disrupted communities across the state and nearly triggered
an economic crisis in Arizona.
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 5

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

F I N D I N GS
CCA’S ‘CULTURE OF BRUTALITY’
The prisons and detention facilities owned and operated by CCA are profoundly dangerous
places. Since its founding, CCA has faced persistent accusations of abusing inmates and
housing them in severely substandard conditions which threaten their health and safety.
These accusations have been substantiated consistently and repeatedly over a period of
decades by inmates former and present, investigative reporting, human rights and civil
liberties organizations and the very custodial agencies which place inmates in CCA
facilities.
In nearly every case, the neglect, abuse and substandard conditions to which inmates are
subjected by CCA can be traced directly to the imperative to minimize costs and maximize
profit which defines for-profit prisons and lies at the heart of CCA’s practice and policies.
Without fail, when it comes to providing for the welfare of the inmates in its facilities or
cutting corners to maximize profit, CCA has elected to jeopardize its inmates in favor of its
shareholders. The prisoners forced to endure CCA’s indifference to their health and safety
have experienced sexual harassment, abuse and assault; deliberate humiliation and
degradation; brutal beatings; denial of food, water, toilets and medical care; unsafe and
unsanitary conditions; and the use of inmate-on-inmate violence as a management tool.
Because of their scope, severity and persistence through time, these forms of violence are
most accurately considered components of what the ACLU has called a “deeply entrenched
culture of brutality” within CCA facilities.24 Rather than being aberrant exceptions to the
rule, the problems at CCA facilities are systematic, affecting tens of thousands of inmates at
dozens of facilities.
The section that follows discusses the ‘culture of brutality’ in CCA facilities, focusing in
particular on four areas: (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual violence, (3) medical negligence and
(4) poor conditions and overcrowding. For each of these categories, a summary of the
relevant findings is presented and is followed by substantiating examples from CCA-run
facilities.

PHYSICAL ABUSE
While CCA entices local communities to support prison building with promises of a steady
supply of well-paying jobs at its facilities, the correctional officers it employs are commonly
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 6

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

paid far below the prevailing standard in public facilities, denied retirement benefits and
prevented from joining unions.25 While this practice of depressing wages and denying
benefits allows CCA to operate its facilities profitably, it also results in extraordinary
employee turnover, routinely exceeding an annual rate of 60 percent and occasionally
running over 100 percent.26 Consequently, CCA facilities are commonly understaffed by
inexperienced and often poorly-trained employees, resulting in a lack of discipline among
guards and a dangerously inadequate level of inmate supervision.
In the absence of a committed, experienced and well-trained staff, CCA has watched
passively as violence has spiraled out of control at its facilities nationwide. The use of
excessive force by guards to control inmates is commonplace at CCA facilities and extreme
forms of physical abuse have been administered as punishment.27 Inmate-on-inmate
violence has been tolerated and, in some cases, condoned and arranged by guards in order
to control inmates.28 Other forms of abuse that have been reported include the use of
illegal shackling techniques, the unnecessary use of chemical irritants and the denial of
access to water, food, toilet facilities and medical care.29 CCA has proved unable or
unwilling to protect inmates from these forms of violence or to challenge the ‘culture of
brutality’ that permits these egregious abuses of human rights to occur with startling
frequency at its facilities.

Columbia Training Center – Richland, South Carolina (1996)
CCA opened the Columbia Training Center (CTC) in July 1996 to house youth prisoners
under contract with the state of South Carolina. While CTC was extremely profitable,
bringing CCA $8.6 million a year, the facility was almost immediately found to be severely
violating the rights of its young inmates.30 A January 1997 investigation by the Governor’s
office found that guards routinely used excessive force against inmates.31 In one instance, a
14-year-old prisoner was hogtied, maced and beaten by guards, eventually requiring him to
be admitted for psychiatric care due to long-term mental illness he suffered as a direct
result of his treatment at the facility. The boy later won a lawsuit which included $3 million
in punitive damages against CCA.32 Eleven other boys also filed lawsuits against CCA
alleging they had experienced similar forms of abuse including beatings and denial of food,
water and toilet facilities.33 Following these allegations, a number of inmate escapes and a
series of state reports detailing the substandard conditions at CTC, then-South Carolina
Governor David Beasley cancelled the state’s contract with CCA to house youth prisoners at
CTC during just its second year of operation.

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 7

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility – Nashville, Tennessee (2004)
Estelle Richardson, a 34-year-old mother of two, was sentenced to CCA’s Metro-Davidson
County Detention Facility for food stamp fraud and probation violation. Richardson was
segregated from other inmates due to being listed in prison records as “mentally deficient
and psychologically impaired.” 34 Shortly thereafter, Richardson requested medical
treatment for injuries sustained during an incident of “excessive force” at the hands of four
CCA employees. A few days later, Richardson was assaulted by a guard who caused a head
injury resulting in bleeding. Several days later, Richardson was found unresponsive in her
cell following another altercation with several CCA employees.35 The autopsy report
revealed that her death was the result of being “slammed into an object, perhaps a wall,
with such force that it fractured her skull, broke four ribs, and damaged her liver.” 36 The
Medical Examiner, as well as the Nashville Police ruled her death a homicide.37 The charges
against the CCA employees who beat Richardson the day before her death were dismissed
because the date of her fatal injury could not be determined.

Idaho Correctional Center – Boise, Idaho (2010)
In March 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit over the
conditions at the state-owned and CCA-run Idaho Correctional Center (ICC), alleging that
the prison staff and management “not only condone prisoner violence, the entrenched
culture of ICC promotes, facilitates, and encourages it.”38 The result of this culture was a
prison known by inmates and guards as the “Gladiator School” in which higher levels of
violence existed than at Idaho’s eight other prisons combined.39 Guards at the facility
routinely exposed inmates to beatings from other inmates and guards as a disciplinary
strategy and then denied medical care to those injured in the attacks. In one chilling
incident captured on surveillance cameras in November 2010, Hanni Elabad was brutally
beaten by another inmate while guards stood watch, failing to intervene even as the
attacker rested in the middle of the attack.40
According to the ACLU, the “epidemic of violence” at ICC was the direct result of actions by
CCA, including its refusal to adequately staff the facility, failure to properly train and
oversee its employees, promotion of a culture of degradation and humiliation of prisoners
and unwillingness to investigate incidents of violence or hold its staff accountable for
arranging or perpetrating them.41 CCA was eventually forced to settle the lawsuit, agreeing
to remedy conditions at ICC by hiring more guards and investigating all reports of violence
against prisoners.

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 8

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL VIOLENCE
A 2007 survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that CCA’s
Torrance County Detention Facility (TCDF) had the highest rate of sexual violence in the
nation.42 The study estimated 13.4 percent of inmates at TCDF experienced sexual
violence, compared to 3.2 percent of inmates in local jails. Most of these instances of sexual
violence were perpetrated by CCA staff members: 7 percent of TCDF inmates reported
being sexually abused or assaulted by prison staff, a rate 3.5 times the national average. 43
Following the publication of the study’s findings, CCA officers were called to testify before
the Department of Justice’s Review Panel on Prison Rape to attempt to account for the
appallingly high rate of sexual violence at TCDF.44
Although the BJS study revealed CCA’s utter failure to protect its inmates from one another
and from its own employees, the company has done little to address the problem of sexual
violence in its facilities and CCA inmates remain at risk. In the years since the BJS report,
CCA has repeatedly faced lawsuits concerning sexual violence in its facilities and its
employees have repeatedly faced prosecution for sexually assaulting inmates. In one case,
a team of CCA guards handcuffed and stripped an inmate before sexually assaulting him
with a shampoo bottle and shocking him with a stun gun.45 In another, a CCA employee
sexually abused an inmate in her cell while her infant son slept nearby in a crib.46
Undoubtedly, many other cases of sexual violence at CCA facilities have gone unreported
and unchallenged. As the data from Torrance County Detention Facility illustrate, these are
not isolated instances but a systemic problem stemming from CCA’s failure to take
seriously the safety of inmates and take meaningful action against employees who
perpetrate sexual violence.

Otter Creek Correctional Center – Wheelwright, Kentucky (2005-2010)
CCA housed about 400 female inmates at the Otter Creek Correctional Center from 2005
until January 2010. Disturbingly, 81 percent of the staff at the women’s facility were
male.47 The preponderance of male staff, lack of accountability for CCA employees and
absence of meaningful state oversight resulted in a pattern of systematic sexual abuse of
female inmates by guards. The number of sexual assaults reported at Otter Creek in 2007
was four times higher than the number reported at the comparable state-run women’s
correctional facility.48
A Department of Corrections investigation concluded in 2009 found that prison
management had failed to take action in seven separate cases of sexual abuse of inmates
over the preceding two years.49 Overall, the Department of Corrections investigated 23
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 9

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

separate instances of sexual assault that occurred between 2006 and 2009.50 Among the
CCA employees eventually charged with sexually assaulting inmates was the prison
chaplain.51 The health consequences of the pervasive culture of sexual violence in the
prison were compounded by “chronically unacceptable conditions” which caused a number
of healthcare workers to quit.52 In August 2009, the state of Hawaii withdrew 168 inmates
from the prison in response to the reports of sexual assault and in January 2010 the state of
Kentucky transferred the remaining prisoners to a state-run facility. While CCA still owns
the facility, it now holds only male inmates.

Eloy Detention Center – Eloy, Arizona (2009-2010)
Tanya Guzman-Martinez, a transgender woman seeking asylum in the U.S., was sexually
abused by a guard and a male detainee while detained for eight months at CCA’s Eloy
Detention Center (EDC) in Eloy, AZ.53 Despite the knowledge that transgender inmates
often seek protective custody to avoid being housed with inmates of a gender with which
they do not identify, CCA officials at EDC placed Guzman-Martinez in the facility’s Secure
Housing Unit where she regularly came into contact with male detainees.54
Guzman-Martinez faced repeated sexual harassment from male detainees and CCA
employees. In December 2009 she was assaulted by a male guard who threatened to
deport her if she refused to comply with his demands. Guzman-Martinez reported the
assault to the Eloy police and her assailant was later convicted on charges related to the
incident. Nonetheless, the CCA staff displayed flagrant disregard for Guzman-Martinez’s
safety, returning her to the same all-male housing unit where she was previously assaulted.
In 2010, just weeks before her release, Guzman-Martinez was again sexually assaulted, this
time by a male detainee.55 The ACLU filed suit against CCA in response to GuzmanMartinez’s testimony. The ACLU complaint includes the repulsive allegation that in one
instance, “a detention officer told other detainees that they could ‘have her’ if they gave him
three soup packets.” 56 Guzman-Martinez’s experience is not an isolated incident;
government documents obtained by the ACLU indicate that eight other instances of sexual
violence have been reported at EDC since 2007.57

T. Don Hutto Residential Center – Taylor, Texas (2010)
An employee at the T. Don Hutto Residential Center, a CCA-run immigration detention
center in Texas, was arrested after being accused of sexually abusing a number of female
inmates and soliciting sex from anther.58 The guard, who was in a supervisory position,
eventually pled guilty to several charges after admitting to groping female detainees while
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 10

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

transporting them to the airport after they had been released on bond.59 While CCA policy
required that two guards be present when women were transported from the detention
facility, lack of oversight allowed the man to be alone with the female detainees on
numerous occasions over his year of employment at the facility.60

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
CCA’s record with regard to providing medical care to the inmates in its facilities is
atrocious. Although constitutionally obligated to provide adequate medical care to every
prisoner in its facilities, CCA has consistently abdicated this responsibility. Medical care is
a major expense of operating a prison and CCA appears to have concluded that prisoners
can do without quality care in order to ensure that its facilities remain profitable.61 The
human cost of this practice aside, even the financial soundness of this formulation is placed
in doubt by the heavy cost of legal fees and punitive damages CCA has incurred following
two decades of frequent lawsuits against the company for failure to provide adequate
medical care at its facilities.62
CCA limits the costs associated with providing medical care to inmates in part by refusing
to provide its staff with sufficient medical training.63 In one instance, a grand jury in
Florida concluded that CCA personnel “failed to demonstrate adequate health training,”
contributing to the death of an inmate in 2001.64 While CCA guards and other staff
members commonly lack the training to recognize and respond appropriately to medical
emergencies, CCA medical staff themselves have often proved to be no more capable of
providing high-quality medical care to inmates. When a guard called the medical staff at
CCA’s Eloy Detention Center for assistance dealing with a medical emergency in 2006, the
vocational nurse on duty responded, but confessed: “I’m not qualified. To be honest, I’m
just a pill-pusher.”65 Even when qualified, CCA medical staff may be unwilling to provide
quality care, denying inmates medication, treatment and outside evaluation in order to
save money and appease their supervisors. Cutting corners and reducing costs at every
step of the way, CCA has gambled recklessly with the health of its prisoners.

Kit Carson Correctional Center – Burlington, Colorado (2001)
In May 2001, Jeffrey A. Buller died one day short of his release from CCA’s Kit Carson
Correctional Center (KCCC) after being denied life-saving medication by CCA medical
staff.66 Buller suffered from a serious and potentially deadly chronic condition called
hereditary angioedema which causes swelling in various parts of the body including the
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 11

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

airway. CCA medical staff were aware of the seriousness of Buller’s condition and
administered him the medication Winstrol on a daily basis. Several weeks before his
released date of May 2, Buller’s supply of Winstrol ran out. Despite his daily requests and
eventual pleas for his medication, CCA medical staff refused to refill his prescription.
Winstrol was available only in 30-day lots and the medical staff were unwilling to spend
$35 for a month’s supply when Buller would be released within two weeks.67
Buller saw the CCA medical staff days before his release, complaining of swelling in his
throat, but was again denied medication and never assessed or referred for outside
evaluation. On May 1, as he packed in his cell for his release the next day, Buller’s
breathing became labored. The medical staff responded belatedly to his frantic calls for
help. By the time emergency medical personnel arrived at the prison, Buller was no longer
breathing. He died shortly thereafter. The CCA staff member in charge of medical
administration at KCCC was named employee of the month for his cost-cutting efforts in the
medical department in April, the month before Buller died for want of $35 of medication.68

Eloy Detention Facility – Eloy, Arizona (2006)
CCA’s failure to provide adequate medical care at its Eloy Detention Facility (EDC) has
repeatedly resulted in tragic outcomes over the past half-decade. In 2006, there were at
least three detainees who died while imprisoned at EDC. The first was a 36-year-old
Guatemalan man, Jose Lopez-Gregario, who committed suicide in September after his
requests for care were ignored by CCA medical staff for a week. A resulting ICE
investigation found that “Medical care in this facility does not meet ICE standards.”69
CCA failed to respond to the results of the ICE investigation and in December a 27-year-old
Colombian man suffered a seizure that left him brain dead after medical staff proved
incompetent and unwilling to seek outside evaluation of the patient. Again, ICE
investigated and found that CCA had “failed on multiple levels to perform basic supervision
and provide for the safety and welfare of ICE detainees.”70
Despite a second indictment of the quality of medical care it provided detainees at EDC,
CCA took no action. Just a few weeks later, a 36-year-old Ecuadoran man named Felix
Franklin Rodriguez-Torres died of testicular cancer after seeing the CCA medical staff many
times and complaining of the illness. It was not until he had about a week to live that CCA
allowed him to be admitted to the hospital, and even then the company refused to reveal
the man’s whereabouts or condition to his family. Given multiple opportunities to improve
the supervision and medical care of its inmates, CCA ignored repeated warnings,

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 12

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

compounding the tragedy and causing three deaths over the course of just four months.
CCA remains unmoved: in 2008, at least two more detainees died at EDC.71

Stewart Detention Center – Lumpkin, Georgia (2009)
A 2008 humanitarian visit to CCA’s Stewart Detention Center (SDC), revealed that CCA was
providing severely substandard medical care to the facility’s inmates.72 Representatives of
Georgia Detention Watch found that numerous detainees were denied medication or other
forms of medical care, despite in some cases repeated requests of the medical staff. In
addition, a number of inmates reported rashes and lesions that they had developed as a
result of parasites or insects in their bedding for which they had received no medical
care.73
The inadequate medical care at SDC has resulted in at least one death, that of Roberto
Martinez Medina in March 2009.74 While there are many unanswered question regarding
his death, it is know that Martinez Medina died of a treatable heart infection after seeking
medical treatment for symptoms at least three days prior to being rushed to the hospital.
The results of an investigation of Martinez Medina’s death by ICE are unclear and an onsite
review of the facility by ICE was scheduled but apparently never conducted. It can only be
assumed that the potentially lethal inadequacy of the medical care provided by CCA at SDC
remains unaddressed.75

POOR CONDITIONS AND OVERCROWDING
CCA has frequently been criticized for housing prisoners in inhuman conditions. Unwilling
to invest the resources necessary to meet minimum standards of safety and comfort, CCA
has exposed inmates to unsafe, unsanitary, overcrowded and otherwise unacceptable
conditions. Once again, prisoners’ well-being takes a backseat to the ethos of cost-cutting
and CCA has proved unwilling “to curtail profit considerations in order to operate prisons
and ensure conditions that accord with constitutional standards.”76 Inmates at CCA
facilities have reported being subjected to severe overcrowding, poor-quality food, poor
sanitation, inadequate infection prevention and insufficient provision for exercise and
recreation.77
In many instances, prisoners at CCA facilities have responded to unacceptable conditions
by rioting or otherwise protesting. At least four significant protests or uprisings by
prisoners at CCA facilities occurred over a three-year period beginning in September
2000.78 This included a non-violent protest in April 2001 by hundreds of prisoners at the
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 13

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Cibola County Correctional Center in New Mexico to protest poor food quality and
complaints regarding the prison commissary. A few months later, hundreds of inmates
rioted for nine hours at the Otter Creek Correctional Facility in Kentucky in response to the
conditions created by the introduction of medium security prisoners into the facility
without additional precautions by CCA staff. In other cases, prisoners have used lawsuits to
seek reprieve from the unlivable conditions in which they are housed. While CCA has been
forced to make certain concessions in response to prison riots and lawsuits, the drive to
reduce operating expenses continues to imperil anyone held at facilities owned and
managed by the company.

Crowley County Correctional Facility – Pueblo, Colorado (2004)
Several hundred prisoners at CCA’s Crowley County Correctional Facility revolted against
substandard conditions in 2004, destroying cells, breaking windows, furniture and
equipment and setting numerous fires during the six-hour riot. In the aftermath of the
rebellion, it was exposed that prison administrators had consistently ignored inmate
complaints about conditions at the facility.79 The Colorado Department of Corrections
conducted an investigation of the riot and its antecedents, finding that poor quality food,
unaddressed inmate grievances, unacceptable conditions of confinement, inadequate
provision of medical care and physical abuse were commonplace prior to the riot. 80 In
addition, CCA was faulted for severely understaffing the facility: only 33 guards were
supervising 1,122 inmates at the time of the inmate uprising.81 Despite clear evidence that
CCA’s negligence and inhumane treatment of prisoners provoked the riot, CCA retained its
contract to hold inmates at the Crowley County Facility.

San Diego Correctional Facility – San Diego, California (2005-2008)
The ACLU joined a lawsuit against CCA and ICE in 2007 over reports of overcrowding and
inhumane conditions at the San Diego Correctional Facility. At the time of the lawsuit, the
CCA-run facility housed about 1,000 detainees awaiting civil immigration proceedings
while in ICE custody. Chronic overcrowding at the facility had resulted in some 650
inmates living three-to-a-cell in rooms designed for just two people.82 Some prisoners
were forced to sleep on plastic slabs on the floor while others slept in bunk beds in the
recreation area.83 Beyond insufficient sleeping space, the policy of triple-celling also
resulted in “increased violence, tension, discomfort, stress, mental suffering, psychiatric
problems, and exposure to respiratory and other infections; diminished access to medical,
mental health and dental services; diminished access to exercise and dayroom space and
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 14

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

other facility services; poor sanitation and decreased ability to maintain personal hygiene;
overburdened and unsanitary shower and toilet facilities.”84 The lawsuit was eventually
settled, with ICE agreeing to transfer about 100 detainees from the facility. CCA was forced
to end the practice of triple-celling and submit to court-ordered inspection to ensure the
facility was no longer housing inmates beyond its capacity.85

T. Don Hutto Detention Center – Taylor, Texas (2006-2007)
The T. Don Hutto Detention Center was converted from a failed medium-security prison
run by CCA to a detention facility for non-citizen families in ICE custody in 2006. As an
immigration detention center, the facility held approximately 200 children in 2007, the
majority of whom were awaiting asylum hearings with their families.86 In March 2007, the
ACLU filed suit against ICE for the prison-like conditions in which children were held at the
CCA facility. The lawsuit documented conditions which violated the minimum standards
for the detention of children in federal immigration custody established by the 1997 court
settlement in Flore v. Meese. Children detained at the facility were required to wear prison
garb, prevented from going outside for up to a month at a time, kept in their cells as much
as 12 hours a day and denied access to medical and psychiatric care and educational
opportunities. Guards routinely punished children by threatening to separate them from
their parents.87 The ACLU lawsuit was eventually settled with ICE and CCA agreeing to
meet minimum standards for detaining non-citizen children. However, the fundamental
problem of detaining children in a private medium-security prison while awaiting civil
immigration proceedings remains unaddressed.

CCA AND THE MANIPULATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
CCA, like all corporations, generates revenue by marketing a product to a set of consumers.
However, because governments – county, state and federal – are CCA’s only customers,
there is a direct financial incentive for the company to manipulate the “demand” for its
services by intervening directly in the political process. While CCA may claim that it is
simply meeting a “demand” for prison beds determined by “market forces,” the company is
in fact actively creating that very demand by promoting policies which expand the scope of
incarceration. Simply put, the more people sentenced to prison or held in immigration
detention and the longer their sentences, the more money CCA stands to make. In this
perverse equation, any legislation which increases incarceration benefits CCA, regardless of
its effect on public safety and community health, strain on public resources or impact on
those sentenced to prison.
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 15

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

The claims which originally bolstered the private prison industry have been largely
delegitimized over the past several decades. In particular, CCA and others have won
contracts on the premise that substituting private prisons for public ones reduces the cost
of incarceration. While prison companies have found ways to cut costs – largely through
artificially suppressing the cost of labor by mistreating and underpaying their employees –
the public also winds up footing the bill for the profit that becomes part of the equation
when private contractors are employed.88 Consequently, despite the claims of the prison
industry, there is no clear evidence that private prisons consistently provide cost savings to
the public when compared to public facilities.89 The series of high-profile scandals and
controversies that beset the prison industry beginning in the mid-1990s revealed that
problems such as the abuse of inmates, the mistreatment of employees and deteriorating
community health due to high rates of incarceration surely offset any hypothetical cost
savings related to prison privatization.90
With their claims to superiority over public prisons invalidated, CCA and its competitors
have been forced to resort to heavy involvement in the political process at the state and
federal level to ensure a steady stream of prisoners to bolster their bottom line. While
prison companies large and small have made their political footprint, CCA has done so most
aggressively, vastly outpacing its rivals in lobbying expenditures and campaign
contributions.91 CCA now spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year promoting
legislation which promotes incarceration and supporting candidates for public office in
hopes of being awarded future contracts.92 CCA has generally exploited three main
avenues for influencing public policy and currying favor with public officials: (1) lobbying,
(2) campaign contributions and (3) membership in the American Legislative Exchange
Council.93 The section that follows discusses CCA’s use of these three political strategies to
quietly manipulate public policy to tip the scales in its favor and remain profitable at the
expense of the public and the prisoners caught up in its fervor for ever-greater
incarceration.

LOBBYING
Like other industries, private prison companies lobby elected officials in order to advance
their business interests at the state and federal levels. Lobbying is loosely regulated and
corporations are permitted to hire lobbyists directly with no spending limitations.
Additionally, there are few reporting requirements, particularly at the state level, and
lobbyists are never required to specify whether they advocate for or against a specific piece
of legislation.
Consequently, information regarding prison companies’ lobbying
expenditures is often sparse and the precise goal of particular lobbying efforts can be
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 16

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

unclear. Nonetheless, because lobbying is intended to advance an industry’s business
interests, it can be safely assumed that the lobbying efforts of CCA and other prison
companies are geared toward generating greater revenue by securing public contracts at
the expense of their competitors and advocating for legislation which promotes greater
incarceration, longer sentences, increased criminalization and expanded prison
privatization.
Since 2003, CCA has spent upwards of $900,000 each year lobbying federal officials,
including as much as $3.38 million in 2005.94 In addition to members of Congress, CCA
directs its lobbying efforts toward representatives of the three federal agencies from which
it secures all of its federal contracts: the Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshall Service and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In 2011 CCA spent $880,000 lobbying federal
officials, including U.S. senators and representatives as well as officials at the Bureau of
Prisons and U.S. Marshall Service. Of the forty-five lobbying reports CCA filed in 2011
specifying the issue around which they were lobbying, one-third named “law enforcement
and crime” as the target issue and nine named “homeland security.”95 Currently, CCA
employs 35 lobbyists on Capitol Hill, 30 of whom have previously worked for members of
Congress or federal agencies.96 CCA’s extensive lobbying efforts have paid handsome
dividends: while spending about $17.8 million dollars lobbying federal officials since 2000,
CCA has been awarded $3.84 billion in federal contracts over the same time period, a
nearly $216 return for every dollar spent.97
State-level lobbying can be even more difficult to track than federal lobbying, in part
because reporting requirements vary by state. At a minimum, state records reveal that CCA
has employed 263 lobbyists in 32 states over the past eight years.98 CCA’s lobbyists have
been found in many cases to maintain disturbingly cozy relationships with the state
officials who are to be “convinced” of CCA’s agenda. In one instance, CCA’s chief lobbyist in
its home state of Tennessee was married to the speaker of the House.99 While little can be
said with any certainty regarding the specifics of CCA’s recent state-level lobbying efforts,
the importance with which CCA regards lobbying state officials is readily apparent. In
Montana, a state containing just 1.5 percent of state prisoners held in private facilities, CCA
still devoted $36,666 to lobbying in the off-year of a biennial legislative cycle.100 CCA has
found lobbying – at both the state and federal level – to be an effective and efficient method
of expanding its business and generating new streams of revenue.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
While lobbying is central to CCA’s political strategy, it has proved most effective when
coupled with campaign contributions to state and federal candidates for office. While
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 17

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

campaign contributions are regulated more strictly than lobbying expenditures,
corporations like CCA are able to contribute to political parties and candidates via Political
Action Committees (PAC) and through personal contributions from their executives and
board members. Campaign contributions allow CCA to establish connections and garner
influence with the public officials who are charged with determining the fate of legislation
relevant to corrections and awarding contracts to prison companies.
CCA has typically devoted significantly greater financial resources to state candidates than
federal candidates, perhaps because state officials are more likely to be directly involved in
awarding prison contracts than federal elected officials.101 Since 2003, CCA’s PAC and its
employees have made a total of $1.75 million in contributions to state-level political
candidates and ballot measures. 102 These contributions have been overwhelmingly
concentrated in two states: California and Florida. California boasts the nation’s largest
prison population and is under a U.S. Supreme Court order to reduce the number of
inmates held in its public prisons. Meanwhile, Florida has the nation’s second-largest
prison population and is under budgetary mandates to privatize certain public prison
beds. 103 Seeing the opportunity represented by overcrowded state prisons and
requirements to downsize or outsource, CCA has attempted to capitalize, devoting 28.7
percent of its state-level political contributions over the past eight years to California and
another 25 percent to Florida.104 In addition to supporting candidates for state office, CCA
has contributed to state ballot initiatives including efforts to facilitate prosecutions,
increase prison sentences, and deny bail to undocumented individuals charged with certain
offenses.105
While CCA has historically focused primarily on state campaign contributions, the company
has still made its impact felt at the federal level. Since 2004, CCA has used its PAC to give
an average of approximately $130,000 to federal candidates and their PACs each election
cycle.106 CCA’s contributions to candidates for federal office through its PAC peaked at
$323,592 during the 2006 election cycle. Most recently, CCA gave a total of $266,800 to
candidates for federal office in 2010.107
Several interesting patterns emerge from CCA’s campaign contributions at both the state
and federal levels. While CCA shows a preference for contributing to the Republican Party
and its candidates, this trend is hardly overwhelming. Over the past eight years, CCA has
given 62.2 percent of its state-level campaign contributions to Republican candidates and
another 28.9 percent to Democratic candidates.108 During the 2010 election cycle, CCA’s
PAC divided its campaign contributions at the federal level nearly evenly, giving 56 percent
to Republicans and 44 percent to Democrats.109 What proves to be the greatest predictor
of support from CCA is not political affiliation, but incumbency status and election outcome.
From 2003 to 2011, CCA made 82.3 percent of its state-level contributions to incumbent
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 18

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

candidates and 78.7 percent to eventual election winners.110 What this demonstrates is
that CCA is not primarily concerned with supporting the platform of a particular political
party. Instead, CCA uses campaign contributions to gain friends in high places and thereby
establish the influence and access to power necessary to promote incarceration and prison
privatization.

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
Not satisfied with promoting incarceration through lobbying and campaign contributions,
CCA has also taken a more direct role in writing legislation, at least at the state level, by its
membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Composed of nearly
2,000 legislators – approximately 1/3 of all state lawmakers – as well as over 200
corporate and special interest private sector members, ALEC describes itself as “the
nation's largest, non-partisan, individual public-private membership association of state
legislators.”111 In essence, ALEC provides a forum for corporate representatives to meet
with state legislators to develop strategy for advancing specific industry objectives. ALEC
derives over 80 percent of its funding from its corporate members, and its anti-regulatory,
anti-union, pro-free-trade agenda clearly reflects the organization’s funding sources.112
While legally barred by its 501(c)(3) status from lobbying on behalf of legislation, ALEC has
taken a more direct route: drafting “model legislation” to be carried back to legislators’
home states and enacted into law.
CCA has been a member of ALEC for at least a decade and currently sits on ALEC’s Public
Safety and Elections Task Force, which is responsible for drafting legislation related to
corrections and reentry, sentencing, bail, homeland security and immigration policy.113
With at least a dozen members that conduct prison business, ALEC has played a largely
unexamined yet crucial role in passing legislation designed to promote incarceration and
expand the prison system.114 In the early 1990s, ALEC went to bat for the prison industry,
encouraging states to enact truth-in-sentencing, three-strikes (or habitual offender), and
mandatory minimum sentencing laws, all of which required longer sentences for those
convicted of crimes. The result of these pieces of legislation is predictable and well
documented: during the 1990s, prison construction boomed, the incarceration rate
increased by 60 percent driven by a prison population expansion of one-half million people
and CCA and its competitors secured lucrative new contracts to house thousands of
inmates from overcrowded public facilities.115
More recently, as CCA has turned toward federal contracts from immigration authorities to
secure new revenue, ALEC has responded by advancing legislation which compounds the
criminalization of immigrant communities. In particular, CCA has worked closely with
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 19

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

ALEC over the past two years to draft and advance legislation which would deputize local
police to enforce immigration law, thereby creating a dragnet to funnel immigrants into its
detention centers and prisons.116 As the next section describes in detail, Arizona has been
made the nation’s testing ground for new anti-immigrant legislation and CCA has been key
to securing its success.

CCA IN ARIZONA
Historically, CCA has intervened most heavily in the politics of states with the largest
populations behind bars, namely California, Florida and to a lesser extent, Georgia. Over
the past several years, however, Arizona has suddenly become a priority for CCA. CCA’s
increasing focus on Arizona is revealed by an examination of its political giving and
lobbying efforts. Campaign contributions by CCA over the past decade have targeted
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, House Speaker Andy Tobin, former Senate President Russell
Pearce and former House Speaker Kirk Adams, but amounted to an average of only $3,500
per year.117 However, during the 2010 election cycle CCA pumped a total of $10,000
dollars in campaign donations into the state political process.118 During the same period,
the lobbying firms retained by CCA in Arizona contributed an additional $35,000 to state
politicians.119
CCA’s sudden interest in Arizona politics beginning in 2010 is anything but happenstance.
Instead, CCA’s stepped-up political efforts in Arizona are directly related to the company’s
ever-increasing reliance on generating revenue from the detention of non-citizens under
contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While immigration detention
has been important to CCA for some time, it is only over the past several years that ICE has
appeared to become CCA’s primary target for generating new streams of revenue. Writing
in 2009, CCA publicly acknowledged that it expected to derive “a significant portion of [its]
revenues” from ICE in the coming years.120 Between January 2008 and April 2011, CCA
spent $4.4 million lobbying federal officials and filed 43 lobbying disclosure reports, all but
five of which stated its intention to monitor or influence immigration policy or attempt to
secure contracts from ICE or the Department of Homeland Security.121 The centrality of
Arizona to CCA’s pursuit of immigrant detainees is clear: three of CCA’s six prisons and
detention centers in Arizona contract with ICE and over 14 percent of CCA’s federal
revenue since 2000 has been generated by its Arizona facilities.122
The section that follows provides two case studies which examine CCA’s involvement in
detaining non-citizens in ICE custody and illuminate the company’s impact on communities
in Arizona. The first case study focuses on CCA’s Eloy Detention Center and details the
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 20

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

facility’s impact on detainees, families and local Arizona communities. The second case
study provides a chronology of Arizona’s SB 1070, exposing CCA’s crucial involvement in
securing passage of the viciously anti-immigrant legislation and exploring the law’s impact
on communities across Arizona.

CASE STUDY: ELOY DETENTION CENTER
CCA has maintained a presence in Arizona since the opening of the Eloy Detention Center
(EDC) in 1994. Today, EDC holds non-citizen detainees awaiting immigration court
proceedings and, with a total of 1,596 beds, is one of the largest immigration detention
centers in the country.123 EDC is also among the most notorious private correctional
facilities in the country. As this report has already documented, EDC has been faulted for
failing to protect detainees from sexual violence (see page 10) and for gross medical
negligence resulting in numerous detainee deaths (see page 12). This section discusses
EDC and its impact on detainees, their families and Arizona communities. In many cases,
these groups are overlapping, with detainees originating from communities across the
state and entire families being detained together, or separated by detention. Nonetheless,
each of these groups has been impacted, directly or indirectly, by immigration detention at
EDC. While an exhaustive review of the multitude of ways EDC has negatively impacted
Arizona is not possible here, the pages that follow highlight EDC’s impact on the local
community of Eloy, its lack of accountability, its role in separating families and its
substandard medical care.

Economic impact
As in other communities, CCA has ingratiated itself to Eloy residents by promising to be an
engine of economic growth and opportunity. In a typical claim, a CCA “independent study”
asserts that building a new CCA prison in Arizona would provide “hundreds of permanent
career opportunities in a fairly recession-proof industry.”124 However, the permanency of
the existing positions at CCA facilities was brought under suspicion in January 2006 when
the Bureau of Prisons announced its intention not to renew its contract with EDC,
threatening the facility with closure and hundreds of employees with termination.
Although EDC eventually remained open under a new contract to house non-citizen
detainees in ICE custody, a number of positions were eliminated and some employees were
forced to accept pay cuts as high as 25 percent to keep their jobs.125

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 21

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

While CCA touts its role in promoting job growth in Eloy, there is little evidence that the
company’s presence has sustainably improved the local economy. Because CCA refuses to
publicly release wage and salary data, it is impossible to directly measure the company’s
affect on the economy. Undeniably, CCA has brought jobs to Eloy. With the opening of the
Red Rock Correctional Center in 2006, CCA became Eloy’s largest private employer,
suggesting the company has significant power to influence wage and employment trends in
the area.126 Nonetheless, a report by the Arizona Department of Commerce in 2008 found
that the employment rate in Eloy remained 49 to 55 percent below national and Arizona
averages, in part because close to ten percent of the city’s population is incarcerated in CCA
facilities. With regard to wages, average non-farm private-sector payroll per employee was
only $23,900 – 26 percent less than the Arizona average and 30 percent less than the
regional average.127 Observing aggregate economic data in Eloy provides no evidence that
CCA has deviated from its usual pattern of paying poverty level wages and providing a bare
minimum of jobs.

Accountability
For detainees at EDC, holding CCA accountable for conditions at the facility and the
treatment of inmates is nearly impossible. Inmate grievances are frequently ignored or
denied by CCA officials and prisoners have no recourse when their concerns go
unaddressed. Between 2005 and 2009, inmates at EDC filed 389 formal grievances over
conditions at the facility. Only 44 of these grievances, barely one in ten, were acted upon by
CCA; the rest were denied or never resolved. 128 As one woman detained at EDC for over a
year explained to the ACLU: “ICE needs to take some responsibility here. We cannot
complain to CCA because they tell us to contact ICE, and ICE tells us to talk to CCA. Here we
do not have rights.”129 CCA’s refusal to accept responsibility for conditions at EDC, a facility
which it owns and manages, clearly deprives detainees of their rights and perpetuates their
mistreatment.

Family separation
Inmates at EDC often arrive at the facility after being transferred hundreds or thousands of
miles from where they were originally apprehended and entered into ICE custody.
Between 1998 and 2008, EDC received 27,674 detainee transfers from other facilities,
making it the third most popular receiving facility in the nation.130 ICE commonly transfers
individuals in its custody, abruptly and with little justification, between facilities without
informing the detainee’s family or attorney. The emotional toll placed on detainees and
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 22

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

their families by cross-country transfers can be devastating. When ICE transfers an inmate
to a facility thousands of miles away, the cost of visiting a detained family member may
become simply insurmountable. Even the cost of communicating by phone can be
prohibitive. Detainees at EDC may not receive phone calls and CCA has been reported to
charge inmates up to $5 per minute to make phone calls.131 In light of these restrictions,
one immigration lawyer commented that the consequences of detainee transfers can be
“devastating financially and emotionally. So many family members have told me that it’s
like their [detained] relative is dead.”132
Transfers also impede detainees’ ability and will to fight their cases in court. Detainees
who have hired legal counsel may be transferred far from their lawyers and compelled to
either pay for their travel expenses or find new legal representation. Additionally, without
the support of family and friends, detainees may be less likely to defend themselves against
removal, regardless of the strength of their case. As one detainee at EDC said, “After a
while, some guys just sign for their [voluntary] departure, because they don’t have a lawyer
and don’t feel able to fight.” Being held at EDC, particularly for those detainees transferred
from other facilities, separates inmates from their families and denies them access to legal
counsel, causing severely damaging emotional and legal consequences.

Francisco spent 14 months in ICE custody at the Eloy Detention Center on a
minor drug possession offense for which he spent 10 days in county jail.
Francisco has lived in Phoenix since he was a young child, where he also
attended grade school and high school. His mother and stepfather are legal
residents and his two young sisters are U.S. citizens. He also has a 4-year-old U.S
citizen daughter. Francisco’s stepfather filed a family petition on his behalf when
he was a minor, which was pending at the time of Francisco’s arrest. Current
immigration laws require mandatory detention, even of people who have very
old or minor convictions like Francisco. In these cases, immigration judges are
not allowed to consider family, work or community ties to decide whether one
should be released on bail to continue his case outside of detention. Separated
from his family for more than a year and faced with the possibility of deportation
to a place where he has no family or support, Francisco and his family endured
uncertainty and significant hardships. His case was eventually granted by the
immigration judge and today he is a legal resident.
Source: ACLU of Arizona, In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers (Phoenix, AZ:
ACLU of Arizona, June 2011), p. 19.

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 23

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Medical care
A congressional report presented in 2010
found that more inmate deaths had
Helen was detained at Eloy Detention
occurred at EDC than at any other
Center for one month. For almost the
immigration detention center in the
entire time she was detained, she
country. 133
Of the many factors
experienced severe vaginal bleeding.
contributing to the high detainee death
She filed medical requests and told
rate at EDC, the substandard medical care
staff that this was not normal for her
CCA provides inmates at the facility may
monthly period, but they still did not
be the most important. A visit to EDC by
consider her situation a medical
the Women’s Refugee Commission in 2010
emergency. The bleeding became so
found troubling reports of medical care
severe that Helen experienced
routinely delayed or denied.
In one
blurred vision, fainting, and could not
instance, a detainee with multiple sclerosis
walk. Helen continued to file
was denied her medication for over two
requests to see a doctor. Ultimately,
months while she waited for her medical
detention officers called a medical
files to be transferred and pressured
emergency and Helen was taken to a
reluctant medical staff to schedule a
local hospital, where doctors
consultation with a neurologist. 134
performed a complete hysterectomy.
Similarly, an investigation by the ACLU
found that detainees at EDC were forced to
Source: ACLU of Arizona, In Their Own Words: Enduring
Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers
wait unreasonable periods to receive
(Phoenix, AZ: ACLU of Arizona, June 2011), p. 31.
needed medical care, including a detainee
diagnosed with bipolar disorder and
depression who was eventually placed in
isolation as punishment for “acting out” after waiting three weeks for his prescribed antipsychotic medication.135 The persistent medical negligence, indifference and incompetence
displayed by CCA staff cause unnecessary and prolonged suffering for inmates at EDC.
EDC’s impact in Arizona has been overwhelmingly negative. Families have been separated,
detainees abused and denied medical care, Eloy residents have been sold exaggerated
promises that never materialized and CCA refuses to be accountable for its impact on
families and communities in the state. Nonetheless, EDC remains a valuable source of
revenue for CCA and the rest, as far as CCA is concerned, is immaterial. In fact, CCA has
begun to look for ways to make EDC and its other Arizona facilities more profitable still.
Although CCA’s 2009 Annual Report claimed that its “growth depends on a number of
factors [it] cannot control” including “any changes with respect to drugs and controlled
substances or illegal immigration,” gaining some measure of control over these external
factors has become a high political priority for CCA. 136 In the same report, CCA
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 24

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

acknowledged that its business “could be adversely affected by the relaxation of
enforcement efforts.”137 In recognition that the inverse is equally true, CCA has recently
contributed to, and stands to benefit directly from, state-level legislative initiatives to
target immigrants with aggressive new enforcement mechanisms.
In 2010, CCA helped make Arizona the testing ground for new legislation designed to
further criminalize immigrant communities, radically expand enforcement of immigration
law and funnel more people into private prisons and immigration detention centers. CCA’s
well-honed political strategy of supporting ALEC model legislation with powerful lobbying
and well-timed campaign donations proved an effective method of helping CCA gain control
over one of the “external factors” over which it had fretted in 2009: the enforcement of
immigration law.

CASE STUDY: SB 1070’S PATH TO LAW
On April 24, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law the “Support Our Law
Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” also known as SB 1070. The law requires that
state and municipal law enforcement officers investigate the immigration status of anyone
they stop, detain or arrest who they suspect lacks federal authorization to be present in the
U.S. The stated goal of the legislation was “attrition through enforcement,” or making life
so unbearable for undocumented populations that they would leave the state all
together.138 The bill virtually breezed through the Arizona State Legislature, becoming law
a mere three months after being introduced in January by Senate President Russell Pearce.
Pearce, the Arizona Senator perhaps best known for racialized rhetorical attacks on
immigrants and the slew of anti-immigrant legislation for which he was responsible, had
attempted since 2003 to pass legislation similar in effect to SB 1070 without success.
Pearce has publicly taken credit for finally winning the passage of SB 1070 in 2010,
downplaying the involvement of other parties in drafting and promoting the legislation.139
However, a number of reports which surfaced after SB 1070 became law pointed to the
heavy influence of the private prison industry in helping to advance the legislation.140
What lubricated the gears for SB 1070 to pass seamlessly through the legislative and
executive branches of the Arizona state government, it seems, was a well-coordinated
effort by the prison industry, led by CCA, to inject its money and influence into the political
process.
CCA and Senator Pearce are both members of the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC) (see page 19) and sit together on the organization’s Public Safety and Elections
Task Force.141 It was to this task force, at ALEC’s annual States and Nation Policy Summit in
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 25

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Washington D.C., that Pearce brought an early draft of SB 1070 in December 2009.
According to Pearce, the draft legislation was approved unanimously by the 50 or so
attending task force members, which included several CCA representatives.142 After the
formality of approval from ALEC’s board of directors, Pearce’s “No Sanctuary Cities for
Illegal Immigrants Act” became official ALEC model legislation.143
Following the ALEC summit, Pearce returned to Arizona and introduced the ALEC model
bill in the State Senate in mid-January. Almost immediately, the signs of a coordinated and
well-funded effort to ensure the bill’s passage became apparent. The bill garnered 36 cosponsoring legislators – a show of support rarely realized in the state legislature – twothirds of whom were ALEC members.144 On January 22, just nine days after SB 1070 was
introduced, CCA hired a new lobbyist, Highground Public Affairs Consultants, to work the
capitol.145 In addition to convincing legislators of the value of the proposed legislation,
CCA’s lobbyists provided the company with powerful contacts in the executive branch. The
president of Highground, Chuck Coughlin, was also serving as a Senior Political Adviser to
Governor Brewer and had acted as her campaign manager.146 In addition, Brewer’s Deputy
Chief of Staff, Paul Senseman, had previously worked as a lobbyist with the Policy
Development Group under contract from CCA.147 CCA retains Policy Development Group to
this day in Arizona and Senseman’s wife continues to lobby for the firm.148
Over the course of the next six months, including the period during which SB 1070 was
debated and voted on, 30 of the 36 co-sponsors of Pearce’s bill received campaign
donations from private prison companies or their lobbyists, including CCA and several of
its competitors.149 This money’s influence became clear when SB 1070 passed the House of
Representatives on April 13 by a vote of 35 to 21 and the Senate on April 19 by a 17 to 11
vote. Governor Brewer’s signature made the bill law four days later. On April 29, the
legislature approved and Brewer signed another law, HB2162, which made several
modifications to SB 1070, most notably a specification that race and national origin could
not be used as factors in implementation of the law. Despite these changes, described by
various lawmakers as “cosmetic”, the final version of the law remained remarkably similar
to the model legislation approved by ALEC in December.150
While four core components of SB 1070 currently remain under a U.S. Circuit Court
injunction pending a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, CCA stands to benefit handsomely if
the law is fully implemented. If SB 1070 succeeds in effectively converting every state and
municipal law enforcement officer in Arizona into an immigration agent, the number of
individuals placed in ICE custody for violation of immigration law will undoubtedly
increase. In 2011, nearly 400,000 people passed through ICE custody and the agency
maintained a total capacity of 33,400 immigration beds. 151 With an expansion of

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 26

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

enforcement as dramatic as that portended by SB 1070, ICE may have to boost its detention
capacity, possibly resulting in new contracts for prison operators like CCA.
The story of SB 1070’s path to law is an excellent illustration of the three components of
CCA’s political strategy used in synthesis to achieve its political aims (see page 15).
Through its membership in ALEC, CCA was able to offer feedback – prior to its introduction
to the public or its political opponents – on proposed legislation that had the potential to
affect the company’s business. Given advance notice of the legislation, CCA was prepared
to make a full-court press for the bill’s passage, hiring a new lobbyist just days after the bill
was made public. In addition to advocating for the legislation, CCA’s well-connected
lobbyists provided the company with additional leverage through their valuable
connections to high-ranking members of the executive branch. Finally, CCA made or
promised campaign contributions to legislators as they were considering the bill, surely
contributing to SB 1070’s relatively uncomplicated journey through the legislature. The
significant expenditure of resources made by CCA in support of SB 1070 suggests that the
company expects to be repaid many times over in the form of lucrative new contracts to
house immigrants detained by ICE.
While CCA’s cold political calculus pays dividends, it fails to take into account the
destructive impact laws like SB 1070 have on the communities they affect. Although not
solely responsible for SB 1070, CCA played a crucial role in securing its passage and stands
to profit significantly from the law’s implementation. Therefore it is reasonable to consider
the impact of SB 1070 as attributable in part to CCA. Even though crucial provisions of SB
1070 have yet to take effect, the information available indicates that the law has already
had a damaging effect on communities in Arizona.

Attrition
Shortly after the passage of SB 1070, the Mexican government began making preparations
– opening shelters and initiating employment programs – for the wave of Mexican citizens
officials expected to leave Arizona for fear of the new law.152 Mexican officials estimate
that between June and September 2010, approximately 23,380 Mexican citizens left
Arizona to return to their country of origin. However, many more thousands of people left
Arizona in the wake of SB 1070 but elected to remain the U.S., moving instead to other
states. By November 2010, almost five percent of Arizona’s Latino/a population,
approximately 100,000 people, had left the state.153 In other words, SB 1070 caused nearly
one in twenty Latinos/as to leave Arizona in less than a year. Inevitably, this hurried
exodus resulted in uprooted and separated families, atomized communities and the
disintegration of existing social and economic support networks.154
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 27

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Social disruption
The inevitable consequence of the mass attrition spurred by SB 1070 is a severely
disrupted social fabric within the state. A recent report published by the University of
Arizona, concluded that SB 1070 was “very damaging” for the immigrant population that
remained in Arizona and the law had “undermined both the education and safety of
Arizona’s youth.”155 Based on interviews with youth, their parents and public school
personnel, the report documented a variety of problems facing immigrant youth, citizen
and undocumented alike, as a result of the law. The harsh consequences affecting Arizona
youth include social and academic problems; family separation; stress-related health
problems; decreased enrollment and destabilization of schools; altered and constricted
daily routines; decreased civic engagement; and enduring mistrust and fear of social
institutions, including schools and law enforcement. The study concluded that the
“pervasive fear and uncertainty” created by SB 1070 had severely destructive
consequences for communities in Arizona, with a particularly pernicious effect on the
state’s youth population.156

Economic impact
Had SB 1070 succeeded in forcing all undocumented immigrants to leave Arizona, the
result would have been a $48.8 billion contraction in the state’s economy, a loss of 581,000
jobs and a 10.1 percent reduction in state tax revenue. 157 Thankfully, the legislation has
failed to achieve absolute attrition of the state’s undocumented population and thus
economic catastrophe has been avoided for the time being. Nonetheless, public reaction to
SB 1070, including a national boycott of the state, has levied severe economic
consequences against Arizona. The decline in tourism attributable to the law has already
resulted in the loss of 2,761 jobs, $253 million in economic output and $9.4 million in
missing tax revenue.158 Shortly after SB 1070’s passage, the city of Phoenix estimated that
it stood to lose $90 million in hotel and convention business over the ensuing five years,
prompting Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon to describe the law as a “near economic crisis.”159
SB 1070 has dealt a significant, and potentially calamitous, blow to Arizona’s already
struggling economy which has proved injurious to the entire state, citizen and
undocumented alike.
The far-reaching damage wrought by SB 1070 glaringly highlights the question of who
ultimately benefits from the legislation. Even Senator Pearce was ousted from the Senate
during a recall election in 2011 due in part to his position as SB 1070’s greatest public
proponent.160 In the face of massive attrition; family separation; community upheaval;
social, academic and health consequences for youth; public mistrust of social institutions;
Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 28

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

and a narrowly-averted “economic crisis,” CCA and its competitors stand alone as the
beneficiaries of SB 1070. CCA awaits the U.S. Supreme Court decision which will determine
whether the law can take full effect and open a dragnet to sweep unprecedented numbers
of people into ICE custody and eventually into CCA’s prisons and detention centers.
Meanwhile, communities of every demographic across Arizona continue to suffer the
consequences of the destructive legislation and CCA’s profiteering.

CONCLUSION
As recently as ten years ago, private prisons were besieged with criticism and the
legitimacy of private incarceration appeared tenuous at best. Over the past decade, CCA
has led a renaissance, transforming private corrections into a five billion dollar a year
industry that now claims nearly one in twelve prison inmates in the U.S. With
unprecedented political power and a rapidly expanding share of the U.S. prison population,
the private prison industry has achieved enormous leverage to shape the face of criminal
justice and corrections in the U.S.
As this report argues, the expanding influence of prison companies like CCA is, at best,
highly troubling. Overwhelming evidence suggests that CCA is unable to responsibly
balance the interests of its shareholders with those of the public and the inmates held in its
facilities. Given the chance to lower costs or increase revenue, CCA will do so with reckless
disregard for the impact on inmates, families and communities. This report has
demonstrated that:






CCA has exposed untold numbers of inmates to extreme and dangerous violations of
their most basic rights. Prisoners routinely experience physical abuse, sexual violence,
medical negligence and poor conditions and overcrowding.
CCA expends hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to exert its political will
through lobbying, campaign donations and partnering with the American Legislative
Exchange Council. CCA’s political activities amount to shameless profiteering designed
to secure new revenue for the company regardless of the cost to society.
CCA has damaged the health of communities wherever it operates, with a particularly
negative impact in Arizona. The Eloy Detention Center and SB 1070 are two examples
of the profound ways in which CCA facilities and political interventions negatively
impact community, family and individual health.

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 29

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

CCA’s record of abuse should thoroughly discredit the company and fundamentally
undermine the very logic of prison privatization. Given ample opportunity to correct for its
inadequacies, CCA has failed to respond, ignoring demands to account for its actions and
surging ahead to secure new contracts and expand its political influence. Measures such as
expanded government oversight and monitoring, legally-binding universal standards of
care for incarcerated populations and enforceable limits on corporate involvement in the
political process may be important correctives to the most egregious excesses of CCA and
its competitors. However, these measures fail to address the fundamental conflict of
interest at the heart of private corrections: that between turning a profit and meeting
minimum standards of care for inmates. Faced with balancing these competing interests,
CCA has amply demonstrated a perverse disregard for the basic rights and dignity of
human beings.
CCA has nothing to offer the public beyond a stark illustration of the inherent inhumanity
and illogic of prison privatization. Given the case against CCA, it would be profoundly
irresponsible to continue to trust the company with the wellbeing of even a single inmate.

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 30

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

ENDNOTES
Liptak, Adam, “U.S. Prison Population Dwarfs That of Other Nations,” New York Times, 23 April 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all
2 Pew Center on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections (Washington, DC: The Pew
Charitable Trusts, March 2009).
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/PSPP_1in31_report_FINAL_WEB_3-26-09.pdf
3 U.S. Department of Justice, Key Facts at a Glance: Correctional Populations (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2012). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/corr2tab.cfm
4 Pew Center on the States, One in 31, 2009.
5 Ibid.
6 U.S. Department of Justice, Key Facts at a Glance: Correctional Populations, 2012.
7 Pew Center on the States, One in 31, 2009.
8 Mason, Cody, Too Good To Be True: Private Prisons in America (Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project,
January 2012). http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Too_Good_to_be_True.pdf
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Fisher, William, “The Corrupt Corporate Corrections Complex,” Truthout, 1 July 2011. http://www.truthout.org/public-private-incarceration-complex/1309275395
12 Ibid.
13 Justice Policy Institute, Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote
Ineffective Incarceration Policies (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, June 2011).
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/gaming_the_system.pdf
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Mattera, Philip, Mafruza Khan and Stephen Nathan, Corrections Corporation of America: A Critical Look at Its
First Twenty Years (Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, December 2003). p. iv.
http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/_publications/CCAAnniversaryReport.pdf. Full quote reads: “CCA is
the leading participant in, and in many ways the embodiment of, one of the most controversial industries ever
created—the incarceration of people for profit.”
17 Mattera, Philip, Mafruza Khan, Greg LeRoy and Kate Davis, Jail Breaks: Economic Development Subsidies
Given to Private Prisons (Washington, DC: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, October 2001).
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/jailbreaks.pdf
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Detention Watch Network, The Influence of the Private Prison Industry in Immigration Detention
(Washington, DC: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, October 2001).
http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/privateprisons
22 Ibid.
23 Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.
24 ACLU, “ACLU Says Brutal Beating At Idaho Correctional Center Another Example Of Rampant Violence
Plaguing Facility,” ACLU, 1 December 2010. http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights-prisoners-rights/aclusays-brutal-beating-idaho-correctional-center-another-example
25 Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.
26 Ibid.
27 Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.
28 ACLU, “ACLU Says Brutal Beating At Idaho Correctional Center Another Example Of Rampant Violence,”
2010.
1

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 31

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Yale Graduate Employees and Students Organization, Endowing Injustice: Yale University’s Investment in
Corrections Corporation of America, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale Graduate Employees and Students
Organization, Fall 2005). http://yaleunions.org/geso/reports/CCAreport.pdf
30 Jackson, David and Cornelia Grumman, “States Put Kids' Lives on the Block,” Chicago Tribune, 26 September
1999. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-09-26/news/9909260346_1_youth-young-wards-juvenile
31 Friedmann, Alex, “US: Juvenile Crime Pays,” Prison Legal News, 1 February 1998.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=865
32 Jackson et al., “States Put Kids' Lives on the Block,” 1999.
33 Friedmann et al. “US: Juvenile Crime Pays,” 1998.
34 Yale Graduate Employees and Students Organization, Endowing Injustice, 2005, p. 6.
35 Bottorff, Christian “Autopsy of Inmate Points to Homicide,” The Tennessean. 15 September 2004.
http://www.corrections.com/articles/3179
36 Ibid.
37 Yale Graduate Employees and Students Organization, Endowing Injustice, 2005.
38 Riggs, et al. v. Valdez, et al. - Second Amended Complaint, No. 1:09-cv-00010-BLW. US District Court, State
of Idaho. 11 March 2010, p. 2, http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-3-11-RiggsSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
39 Cohn, Scott, “Private Prison Industry Grows Despite Critics,” CNBC, 18 October 2011.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44936562/ns/business-cnbc_tv/t/private-prison-industry-grows-despitecritics/
40 Ibid.
41 Riggs, et al. v. Valdez, et al., 2010.
42 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007, (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, June 2008.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svljri07.pdf
43 Ibid.
44 “Jail Personnel Questioned on Rape Rate,” Mountain View Telegraph, 9 October 2008.
http://www.abqjournal.com/mountain/index.php/news/320-Jail-Personnel-Questioned-on-Rape-Rate-.pdf
45 Yale Graduate Employees and Students Organization, Endowing Injustice, 2005.
46 Human Rights Watch, Detained and at Risk: Sexual Abuse and Harassment in United States Immigration
Detention (New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, August 2010).
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0810webwcover.pdf
47 Urbina, Ian, “Hawaii to Remove Inmates Over Abuse Charges,” New York Times, 25 August 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/us/26kentucky.html
48 Ibid.
49 Dunlop, R. G., “Behind the Bars: Kentucky Had Gaps in Monitoring Troubled Otter Creek Prison,” CourierJournal, 4 July 2010. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100705/NEWS01/7050309/Behind-BarsKentucky-had-gaps-monitoring-troubled-Otter-Creek-prison
50 Urbina, “Hawaii to Remove Inmates Over Abuse Charges,” 2009.
51 Ibid.
52 Dunlop, “Behind Bars,” 2010.
53 Ortega, Bob, “Transgendered Woman Alleges Abuse in Eloy Prison, Suing ICE,” The Arizona Republic, 8
December 2011. http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2011/12/08/20111208womanalleges-abuse-eloy-prison.html
54 Guzman-Martinez v. Corrections Corporation of America, et al. - Complaint, US District Court, State of
Arizona. 5 December 2011, http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/Guzman%20%20Complaint.pdf
55 ACLU, “ACLU of Arizona Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Transgender Woman Sexually Assaulted By CCA Guard,”
ACLU, 5 December 2011. http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-lgbt-rights-prisoners-rights/aclu-arizonafiles-lawsuit-behalf-transgender-woman
56 Ibid. p.13.
57 Ortega, “Transgendered Woman Alleges Abuse,” 2011.
58 Human Rights Watch, Detained and at Risk, 2010.
29

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 32

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Cargile, Erin, “Feds File Charges Against Former Guard,” KXAN, 12 May 2011.
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/Former-guard-in-federal-court
60 Vega, Jackie, “Eight Victims ID’d in Hutto Guard Case,” KXAN, 20 August 2010.
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/deputies-to-discuss-arrested-guard
61 Rountree, Meredith Martin, Prison and Jail Accountability Project, (Houston, TX: Texas ACLU, 31 March
2003). http://aclutx.org/files/ACLU%20Private%20Prisons%20White%20Paper.pdf
62 Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Bernstein, Nina, “Hurdles Shown in Detention Reform,” New York Times, 20 August 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/nyregion/21detain.html?pagewanted=all
66 Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.
67 Schlitters v. Corrections Corporation of America et al. - Complaint, US District Court, State of Colorado.
March 2003. http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/170/cases/1167/1632/correctionscorp-of-america-schlitters_complaint.pdf
68 S chlitters v. Corrections Corporation of America et al. - Complaint, 2003.
69 Bernstein, Nina, “Hurdles Shown in Detention Reform,” 2009.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid.
72 Georgia Detention Watch, Report on the December 2008 Humanitarian Visit to the Stewart Detention Center,
(Georgia: Georgia Detention Watch, May 2009).
http://www.acluga.org/Georgia_Detention_Watch_Report_on_Stewart.pdf
73 Ibid.
74 Detention Watch Network, “Silent Vigil Marks Anniversary of Roberto Martinez Medina's Death,” Detention
Watch Network, 11 March 2010. http://detentionwatchnetwork.org/DND_GDW31110
75 Ibid.
76 Yale Graduate Employees and Students Organization, Endowing Injustice, 2005, p. 5.
77 Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.
78 Ibid.
79 Yale Graduate Employees and Students Organization, Endowing Injustice, 2005.
80 Renfrow, Nolin, Cherrie Greco and Anna Cooper, After Action Report: Inmate Riot: Crowley County
Correctional Facility, July 20, 2004, (Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Corrections, October 2004).
http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Colorado%20Dept%20of%20Corrections_After%20
Action%20Report.pdf
81 Talvi, Silja J.A., "A Dubious Distinction," In These Times, 4 February 2005.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/1920/
82 ACLU, “ACLU Secures End To Overcrowding At San Diego Correctional Facility,” ACLU, 4 June 2008.
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-prisoners-rights/aclu-secures-end-overcrowding-san-diegocorrectional-facility
83 Ibid.
84 Isaac Kigondu Kiniti et al. v. Julie L. Myers et al. - Complaint, US District Court, Southern District of
California. 24 January 2007. p. 2. http://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file904_28128.pdf
85 ACLU, “ACLU Secures End To Overcrowding,” 2008.
86 Hawkes, Danielle, “Locking Up Children: Lessons from the T. Don Hutto Family Detention Center,” Journal of
Law and Family Studies, vol. 11, pp. 171-181.
87 ACLU, “Case Summary in the ACLU's Challenge to the Hutto Detention Center,” ACLU, 6 March 2007.
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/case-summary-aclus-challenge-hutto-detention-center
88 Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.
89 Mason, Too Good To Be True: Private Prisons in America, 2012).; Mattera, Jail Breaks: Economic Development
Subsidies Given to Private Prisons, 2001.
90 Mattera, Jail Breaks: Economic Development Subsidies Given to Private Prisons, 2001.
59

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 33

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Ortega, Bob, “Arizona Prison Businesses are Big Political Contributors,” The Arizona Republic, 4 September
2011. http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2011/09/04/20110904arizona-prison-businesspolitics.html#ixzz1X1popIxa; Justice Policy Institute, Gaming the System, 2011.
92 Justice Policy Institute, Gaming the System, 2011.
93 Ibid.
94 Justice Policy Institute, Gaming the System, 2011.; Center for Responsive Politics, “Lobbying Corrections
Corp of America - Summary 2011,” Center for Responsive Politics, 11 December 2011.
91

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021940&year=2011

Center for Responsive Politics, “Lobbying Corrections Corp of America - Summary 2011,” 2011.
Ortega, “Arizona Prison Businesses,” 2011.
97 Ibid.; Center for Responsive Politics, “Lobbying Corrections Corp of America - Summary 2011,” 2011.
95
96

98

National Institute on Money in State Politics, “Lobbyist Link – Corrections Corporation of America,” National
Institute on Money in State Politics, accessed 19 January, 2012.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistclient.phtml?lc=100552

Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.
Justice Policy Institute, Gaming the System, 2011
101 Ibid.
102 National Institute on Money in State Politics, Corrections Corp of America, National Institute on Money in
State Politics, accessed 19 January 2012.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=695&y=0
103 Justice Policy Institute, Gaming the System, 2011
104 National Institute on Money in State Politics, Corrections Corp of America.
105 Mason, Cody, Too Good To Be True: Private Prisons in America, 2012.
106 Ibid.
107 Center for Responsive Politics, “PACs: Corrections Corp of America, Spending by Cycle,” accessed 19
January 2012. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00366468&cycle=2010
99

100

108

National Institute on Money in State Politics, “Noteworthy Contributor Summary, Corrections Corp of America,”
National Institute on Money in State Politics, accessed 19 January, 2012.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=695&y=0

Center for Responsive Politics, “PACs: Corrections Corp of America, Party Split by Cycle,” accessed 19
January 2012. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00366468&cycle=2010
110 Ibid.
111 Hodai, Beau. "Corporate Con Game." In These Times, 21 June 2010.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6084/corporate_con_game/
112 American Association for Justice, ALEC: Ghostwriting the Law for Corporate America (Washington D.C.:
American Association for Justice, May 2010). http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xbcr/justice/ALEC_Report.pdf
113 Mattera et al., Corrections Corporation of America, 2003.; Justice Policy Institute, Gaming the System, 2011
114 Selman, Donna, Paul Leighton, Punishment for Sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration
Binge, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, January 2010).
115 U.S. Department of Justice, Key Facts at a Glance: Correctional Populations, 2012.; U.S. Department of
Justice, Key Facts at a Glance: Incarceration Rate, 1980-2009, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2012). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/incrttab.cfm; Kirchoff, Suzanne M., Economic Impacts
of Prison Growth, (Charleston, SC: BiblioGov, April 2010).
116 Hodai, Beau. "Corporate Con Game," 2010.; Sullivan, Laura. "Prison Economics Help Drive Arizona
Immigration Law." NPR, 28 October 2010.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741; Sullivan, Laura. "Shaping State Laws
with Little Scrutiny." NPR, 29 October 2010.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130891396.
117 Ortega, “Arizona Prison Businesses,” 2011.
109

118

National Institute on Money in State Politics, “Noteworthy Contributor Summary, Corrections Corp of America.”

Ortega, “Arizona Prison Businesses,” 2011.
Sullivan, Laura. "Prison Economics Help Drive Arizona Immigration Law." 2010.
121 Hodai, Beau. "Corporate Con Game," 2010.
119
120

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 34

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Ortega, “Arizona Prison Businesses,” 2011.
ACLU of Arizona, In Their Own Words, 2011.
124 Elliot D. Pollack and Company, CCA: Arizona Correctional Facilities Economic and Fiscal Impact Report
(Nashville, TN: Corrections Corporation of America, February 2010) http://www.cca.com/static/assets/AZEconomic-Impact-Study-Exec_summary209.pdf
125 Wallace, J.D., “Eloy Detention Center to Remain Open,” KOLD News, 2006.
http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/4545510/eloy-detention-center-to-remain-open?redirected=true
126 American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area, Prison Privatization in Arizona (Tucson, AZ: AFSC,
October 2010).
http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/AZ_Prison_Privatization_White_Paper.pdf
127 Center for Competitiveness and Prosperity Research, Arizona State University, Economy of Eloy (Phoenix,
AZ: Arizona Department of Commerce, January 2008).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=http
%3A%2F%2Fedge.eddesignsolutions.com%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D5%
26Itemid%3D92&ei=JgEiT77FC8rE2QWp16zfDg&usg=AFQjCNFEzm7TF3PXMyy10lKLNoqTqUrz2A
128 ACLU of Arizona, In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers (Phoenix,
AZ: ACLU of Arizona, June 2011).
http://acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/detention%20report%202011.pdf
129 Ibid., p. 21.
130 Human Rights Watch, Locked Up Far Away: The Transfer of Immigrants to Remote Detention Centers in the
United States (New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, December 2009).
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1209webwcover_0.pdf
131Bradford, Harry, “Inmates in Private Georgia Prison Charged Five Dollars Per Minute for Phone Calls,” The
Huffington Post, 18 November 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/prisoners-in-privategeorgia-prison_n_1099669.html
132 Human Rights Watch, Locked Up Far Away, 2009, p. 82.
133 National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration Detention, 2011; Wood, Graeme, “A Boom Behind
Bars,” MSNBC, 25 March 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42197813/ns/businessus_business/t/boom-behind-bars/
134 Women’s Refugee Commission, Migrant Women and Children at Risk: In Custody in Arizona (New York, NY:
Women’s Refugee Commission, October 2010).
http://www.essex.ac.uk/ARMEDCON/story_id/migrant_women_and_children_at_risk_in_custody_in_arizon[1
].pdf
135 ACLU of Arizona, In Their Own Words, 2011.
136 Corrections Corporation of America, 2009 Annual Report (Nashville, TN: Corrections Corporation of
America, 2010), p. 23. http://ir.correctionscorp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=117983&p=irol-reportsannual
137 Ibid, p. 23.
138 The full text of Arizona’s State Bill 1070 can be found here:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6813/arizona-immigration-law.pdf
139 Rau, Alia Beard. "Sen Russell Pearce: SB 1070 Story a ‘Lie,’ The Arizona Republic, 29 October 2010.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/10/29/20101029russell-pearce-sb1070-story-lie.html
140 Hodai, Beau. "Corporate Con Game," 2010.; Sullivan, Laura. "Prison Economics Help Drive Arizona
Immigration Law." 2010.; Sullivan, Laura. "Shaping State Laws with Little Scrutiny,” 2010.
141 Hodai, Beau. "Corporate Con Game," 2010.
142 Sullivan, Laura. "Prison Economics Help Drive Arizona Immigration Law." 2010.
143 Hodai, Beau. "Corporate Con Game," 2010.
144 Sullivan, Laura. "Prison Economics Help Drive Arizona Immigration Law." 2010.
145 Arizona Secretary of State Lobbyist System, Corrections Corp of America, accessed 21 January 2012.
http://www.azsos.gov/scripts/Lobbyist_Search.dll/ZoomPPB?PPB_ID=101484
122
123

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 35

THE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

HOW CCA ABUSES PRISONERS, MANIPULATES
THE PUBLIC AND DESTROYS COMMUNITIES

Sullivan, Laura. "Prison Economics Help Drive Arizona Immigration Law." 2010.; KPHO Phoenix, “Private
Prisons Might Gain From New Immigration Law,” 22 August 2010.
http://www.kpho.com/story/14787134/private-prisons-might-gain-from-new-immigration-law-7-22-2010
147 Ibid.
148 KPHO Phoenix, “Private Prisons Might Gain From New Immigration Law,” 2010.; Arizona Secretary of State
Lobbyist System, Corrections Corp of America.
149Sullivan, Laura. "Prison Economics Help Drive Arizona Immigration Law." 2010.
150 The full amended text of SB 1070 can be read here: http://www.azdatapages.com/sb1070.html. The text
of the ALEC model legislation can be found here: http://alecexposed.org/w/images/2/2d/7K5No_Sanctuary_Cities_for_Illegal_Immigrants_Act_Exposed.pdf. The changes made by HB2162 to SB 1070 were
described as “cosmetic” by former state Senator Alfredo Gutierrez and U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva.
Senator Pearce himself said the new wording was unlikely to affect enforcement of the law. See: Fischer,
Howard, “Brewer Signs SB 1070 Changes,” Yuma Sun, 30 April 2010.
http://www.yumasun.com/articles/brewer-58149-changes-phoenix.html; Smith, Dylan, “Thousands March
Against Arizona Immigration Law,” TucsonSentinel.com, 1 May 2010.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/050110_immigration_march/thousands-march-againstarizona-immigration-law/.
151 National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration Detention (Washington D.C.: National Immigration
Forum, August 2011). http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/MathofImmigrationDetention.pdf
152 Cattan, Nacha, “Arizona Immigration Law 2010: As SB 1070 Takes Effect, Mexicans Say ‘Adios, Arizona,’”
The Christian Science Monitor, 29 July 2010.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0729/Arizona-immigration-law-2010-As-SB1070takes-effect-Mexicans-say-Adios-Arizona
153 BBVA Research, Mexico Migration Outlook (Mexico City, MX: BBVA Research Mexico, November 2010).
http://www.bbvaresearch.com/KETD/fbin/mult/1011_MigrationOutlookMexico_04_tcm348234630.pdf?ts=1372011
154 See: Lopez, Tomas, Left Back: The Impact of SB 1070 on Arizona’s Youth (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona,
September 2011). http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/pdf/Left_Back.pdf
155 Ibid, Full quotes read: “While this report’s participants suggest that many people did in fact leave Arizona,
their accounts also confirm that this attrition was incomplete, haphazard, and very damaging to those who
remained.” p. 2.; “This report’s findings document that SB 1070 undermined both the education and safety of
Arizona’s youth—all while keeping much of the immigrant community largely, if fearfully, in place.” p. 23.
156 Ibid, p. 24.
157 Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raul, Marshall Fitz, A Rising Tide or a Shrinking Pie: The Economic Impact of Legalization
Versus Deportation in Arizona (Washington D.C.: Center for American Progress and Immigration Policy Center,
March 2011). http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/pdf/rising_tide.pdf
158 Wolgin, Philip E., Angela Maria Kelley, Your State Can’t Afford It: The Fiscal Impacts of States’ AntiImmigrant Legislation (Washington D.C.: Center for American Progress, July 2011).
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/pdf/state_immigration.pdf
159 Berry, Jahna, “$90 Million at Risk in Boycott of Arizona,” The Arizona Republic, 11 May 2010.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/05/11/20100511phoenix-conventioncenter-boycott.html
160 Weiner, Rachel, “Arizona Recall: Why Russell Pearce Lost,” The Washington Post, 9 November 2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/arizona-recall-why-russell-pearcelost/2011/11/09/gIQALj6a5M_blog.html
146

Corazón de Tucson| January 2012

Page 36