Woodruff writes: "One for-profit prison company has found that incarcerating
infants, toddlers, children, and mothers - as long as they're undocumented
immigrants - is a great way to boost their revenue by upward of $49 million
over the previous year."
The Corrections Corporation of America is a publicly traded, for-profit
company. (illustration: Sarah Rogers/The Daily Beast)
Prison Gets Rich Locking Up Preschoolers
By Betsy Woodruff, The Daily Beast
08 September 15
Corrections Corporation of America is getting rich from jailing children and
pregnant women-and no one seems to care.
If you're looking to make some money, try locking up toddlers.
One for-profit prison company has found that incarcerating infants,
toddlers, children, and mothers-as long as they're undocumented
immigrants-is a great way to boost their revenue by upward of $49 million
over the previous year.
The latest quarterly finance report from Corrections Corporation of America,
a for-profit prison company, indicates that its contract with Immigration
and Customs Enforcement to manage a detention center packed with immigrant
mothers and children is very helpful to its bottom line.
Part of the reason their deal is so lucrative? The public isn't particularly
bothered by it.
The company can thank President Obama. Facing enormous political pressure
and eye-grabbing headlines, the Obama administration moved last summer to
dramatically expand the federal government's capacity for locking up young
mothers and kids.
Before last summer-when thousands of mothers and young children fleeing gang
violence and bad governance in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador crossed
the southern border into this country-the detention of immigrant families
was rare.
Antonio Ginatta, the U.S. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said
there were only 90 beds or fewer in facilities designated for the detention
of these immigrants. But then last summer happened, and the number of young
children-many entering the country without parents-and young mothers
crossing the border went up dramatically.
"There was no family detention in the United States, practically, a year and
a half ago," said Ginatta. "And now we're in the thousands."
The feds quickly opened a facility in Artesia, New Mexico, with the specific
mission of detaining mothers and young children. But that facility drew
controversy and closed down before the year was out. Many of the detainees
there were then transferred to a new facility in the town of Dilley, Texas.
The benignly-named South Texas Family Residential Center, also called
Dilley, is a 2,400-bed immigrant detention center that serves as a temporary
home-if that's the appropriate word to use for a place you can't leave-for
mothers and young children.
Human-rights activists and immigration attorneys have leveled harsh
criticism at the practice of detaining families. A group of faculty from the
University of Texas decried the facility in a letter to the university's
president, saying family detention "causes permanent harm to the physical
and mental health of young children, compounding the trauma they have
experienced in their home countries."
Last month, District Court Judge Dolly Gee released a ruling critical of how
immigration officials treated undocumented children-including the detention
these children face. That ruling cheered some activists. But McClatchy
reported that the Department of Homeland Security indicated that the centers
will "continue to operate close to the manner they're currently running."
Dilley is managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, a
publicly traded, for-profit company. The company's prisons have been dogged
by allegations of maltreatment, neglect, and abuse-as if the practice of
detaining toddlers wasn't controversial enough.
Bryan Johnson, an immigration attorney who has represented many immigrants
detained at Dilley, said shareholders have a moral obligation to divest from
CCA.
"In just one year, these investment companies have profited millions off of
the illegal detention of children and babies fleeing unthinkable harm in
Central America," he told The Daily Beast. "Because these companies wanted a
bigger quarterly dividend, dozens of children, including some of my clients,
were denied medical treatment to such a shocking degree that their lives
were put at imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm."
As CCA's quarterly report indicates, the public doesn't really care about
this too much-and that means the company can make money from the practice
without much profit-inhibiting pushback.
In its report, the company notes that its revenue in the second quarter of
2015 was about $49 million higher than it was in the second quarter of 2014.
That happened even though it lost a prison contract in Idaho after the FBI
started investigating one of their facilities for understaffing and
defrauding the state. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Idaho
didn't end up prosecuting the company, because-according to a press release
on the decision-"the false entries and understaffing could be attributed
only to relatively low-level CCA employees." How nice!
Thanks in large part to Dilley, the company was able to cut its losses-and
then some.
"The increase in revenue was primarily attributable to the operational ramp
of our South Texas Family Residential Center, which generated approximately
$65.9 million in revenue during the second quarter of 2015," notes the
quarterly report, as well as being due to new inmates in Arizona and
Colorado.
A recap: CCA made $49 million more in the second quarter of this year than
it did in the second quarter of last year. And in the second quarter of this
year, Dilley-where mothers and toddlers are locked up-generated a whopping
$65.9 million in revenue.
NASDAQ, as you might imagine, has nice things to say about CCA's stock. The
"consensus recommendation," based on analyst research? Buy.
And Seeking Alpha, "a crowd sourced content service for financial markets,"
praised CCA for its "innovative yield strategy.
In the first quarter of the year, according to that quarterly report, Dilley
generated $36 million in revenue. So that's $100 million in revenue in a
quick six months.
But it's not all sunshine and butterflies for CCA. In the second-quarter
report, it notes a few things that could go wrong and adversely impact their
bottom line. One of those things: "changes in... the public acceptance of
our services."
I contacted CCA's communications office and asked what they meant by that.
They didn't return my calls or email. We can only assume they meant to say
that the American public currently accepts the work CCA does at Dilley, and
that that's good news for their stock. And that is good news for CCA's major
holders, which include The Vanguard Group and BlackRock.
This all comes at a time when the political climate has been a bit dicey for
the prison industry. The Motley Fool reported that CCA is a little worried
about marijuana legalization.
"[A]ny changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal
immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and
sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities
to house them," it says, per the site.
And of course, any criminal justice reform that shrinks the prison
population would hurt their business as well. Texas alone, for instance, has
closed three adult facilities since a criminal justice overhaul in 2007.
CCA and other for-profit prison companies are quite adept at lobbying for
their business interests, as The Washington Post detailed earlier this year.
The Intercept reported earlier this summer that five of Hillary Clinton's
campaign bundlers work for a lobbying and law firm that CCA paid $240,000
last year. The site noted that one of those bundlers, Brian Popper, helped
block a policy change that would have made the private prison corporation
respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. Given what we know about
CCA, one could imagine that it having to respond to such inquiries might
have turned up an interesting factoid or two. Oh, well!
Xochitl Hinojosa, a spokesperson for Clinton's campaign, noted that the
former secretary of state told Telemundo in August that the feds should
"begin to close down these centers," and that she told a high school
roundtable in North Las Vegas that children and "vulnerable people"
shouldn't spend time in "big detention facilities." Hinojosa didn't say if
Clinton has distanced herself from lobbyists and bundlers with ties to CCA.
Laura Lichter, an immigration attorney and former head of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association, told The Daily Beast that she finds
Dilley's existence baffling.
"The only reason I can see that people are still in family detention is
because there must be incredible pressures to keep it going on the basis of
its profitability," she said.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
The Corrections Corporation of America is a publicly traded, for-profit
company. (illustration: Sarah Rogers/The Daily Beast)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/08/america-s-most-lucrative-pr
eschooler-prison.htmlhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/08/americ
a-s-most-lucrative-preschooler-prison.html
Prison Gets Rich Locking Up Preschoolers
By Betsy Woodruff, The Daily Beast
08 September 15
Corrections Corporation of America is getting rich from jailing children and
pregnant women-and no one seems to care.
f you're looking to make some money, try locking up toddlers.
One for-profit prison company has found that incarcerating infants,
toddlers, children, and mothers-as long as they're undocumented
immigrants-is a great way to boost their revenue by upward of $49 million
over the previous year.
The latest quarterly finance report from Corrections Corporation of America,
a for-profit prison company, indicates that its contract with Immigration
and Customs Enforcement to manage a detention center packed with immigrant
mothers and children is very helpful to its bottom line.
Part of the reason their deal is so lucrative? The public isn't particularly
bothered by it.
The company can thank President Obama. Facing enormous political pressure
and eye-grabbing headlines, the Obama administration moved last summer to
dramatically expand the federal government's capacity for locking up young
mothers and kids.
Before last summer-when thousands of mothers and young children fleeing gang
violence and bad governance in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador crossed
the southern border into this country-the detention of immigrant families
was rare.
Antonio Ginatta, the U.S. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said
there were only 90 beds or fewer in facilities designated for the detention
of these immigrants. But then last summer happened, and the number of young
children-many entering the country without parents-and young mothers
crossing the border went up dramatically.
"There was no family detention in the United States, practically, a year and
a half ago," said Ginatta. "And now we're in the thousands."
The feds quickly opened a facility in Artesia, New Mexico, with the specific
mission of detaining mothers and young children. But that facility drew
controversy and closed down before the year was out. Many of the detainees
there were then transferred to a new facility in the town of Dilley, Texas.
The benignly-named South Texas Family Residential Center, also called
Dilley, is a 2,400-bed immigrant detention center that serves as a temporary
home-if that's the appropriate word to use for a place you can't leave-for
mothers and young children.
Human-rights activists and immigration attorneys have leveled harsh
criticism at the practice of detaining families. A group of faculty from the
University of Texas decried the facility in a letter to the university's
president, saying family detention "causes permanent harm to the physical
and mental health of young children, compounding the trauma they have
experienced in their home countries."
Last month, District Court Judge Dolly Gee released a ruling critical of how
immigration officials treated undocumented children-including the detention
these children face. That ruling cheered some activists. But McClatchy
reported that the Department of Homeland Security indicated that the centers
will "continue to operate close to the manner they're currently running."
Dilley is managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, a
publicly traded, for-profit company. The company's prisons have been dogged
by allegations of maltreatment, neglect, and abuse-as if the practice of
detaining toddlers wasn't controversial enough.
Bryan Johnson, an immigration attorney who has represented many immigrants
detained at Dilley, said shareholders have a moral obligation to divest from
CCA.
"In just one year, these investment companies have profited millions off of
the illegal detention of children and babies fleeing unthinkable harm in
Central America," he told The Daily Beast. "Because these companies wanted a
bigger quarterly dividend, dozens of children, including some of my clients,
were denied medical treatment to such a shocking degree that their lives
were put at imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm."
As CCA's quarterly report indicates, the public doesn't really care about
this too much-and that means the company can make money from the practice
without much profit-inhibiting pushback.
In its report, the company notes that its revenue in the second quarter of
2015 was about $49 million higher than it was in the second quarter of 2014.
That happened even though it lost a prison contract in Idaho after the FBI
started investigating one of their facilities for understaffing and
defrauding the state. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Idaho
didn't end up prosecuting the company, because-according to a press release
on the decision-"the false entries and understaffing could be attributed
only to relatively low-level CCA employees." How nice!
Thanks in large part to Dilley, the company was able to cut its losses-and
then some.
"The increase in revenue was primarily attributable to the operational ramp
of our South Texas Family Residential Center, which generated approximately
$65.9 million in revenue during the second quarter of 2015," notes the
quarterly report, as well as being due to new inmates in Arizona and
Colorado.
A recap: CCA made $49 million more in the second quarter of this year than
it did in the second quarter of last year. And in the second quarter of this
year, Dilley-where mothers and toddlers are locked up-generated a whopping
$65.9 million in revenue.
NASDAQ, as you might imagine, has nice things to say about CCA's stock. The
"consensus recommendation," based on analyst research? Buy.
And Seeking Alpha, "a crowd sourced content service for financial markets,"
praised CCA for its "innovative yield strategy.
In the first quarter of the year, according to that quarterly report, Dilley
generated $36 million in revenue. So that's $100 million in revenue in a
quick six months.
But it's not all sunshine and butterflies for CCA. In the second-quarter
report, it notes a few things that could go wrong and adversely impact their
bottom line. One of those things: "changes in... the public acceptance of
our services."
I contacted CCA's communications office and asked what they meant by that.
They didn't return my calls or email. We can only assume they meant to say
that the American public currently accepts the work CCA does at Dilley, and
that that's good news for their stock. And that is good news for CCA's major
holders, which include The Vanguard Group and BlackRock.
This all comes at a time when the political climate has been a bit dicey for
the prison industry. The Motley Fool reported that CCA is a little worried
about marijuana legalization.
"[A]ny changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal
immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and
sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities
to house them," it says, per the site.
And of course, any criminal justice reform that shrinks the prison
population would hurt their business as well. Texas alone, for instance, has
closed three adult facilities since a criminal justice overhaul in 2007.
CCA and other for-profit prison companies are quite adept at lobbying for
their business interests, as The Washington Post detailed earlier this year.
The Intercept reported earlier this summer that five of Hillary Clinton's
campaign bundlers work for a lobbying and law firm that CCA paid $240,000
last year. The site noted that one of those bundlers, Brian Popper, helped
block a policy change that would have made the private prison corporation
respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. Given what we know about
CCA, one could imagine that it having to respond to such inquiries might
have turned up an interesting factoid or two. Oh, well!
Xochitl Hinojosa, a spokesperson for Clinton's campaign, noted that the
former secretary of state told Telemundo in August that the feds should
"begin to close down these centers," and that she told a high school
roundtable in North Las Vegas that children and "vulnerable people"
shouldn't spend time in "big detention facilities." Hinojosa didn't say if
Clinton has distanced herself from lobbyists and bundlers with ties to CCA.
Laura Lichter, an immigration attorney and former head of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association, told The Daily Beast that she finds
Dilley's existence baffling.
"The only reason I can see that people are still in family detention is
because there must be incredible pressures to keep it going on the basis of
its profitability," she said.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
