Maintaining the Prison-Industrial Complex: Private Actors and Power

(1)

Maintaining the Prison-Industrial

Complex: Private Actors and Power

A Multi-Dimensional Power Analysis of CoreCivic and

The GEO Group

Bachelor Thesis in Peace and

Development Studies

Author: Linnéa Sturmhoefel Warnberg Supervisor: Manuela Nilsson

(2)

[This page intentionally left blank]

(3)

Abstract

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

Keywords

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

Acknowledgements

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

(4)

Appendices

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

Investigation

(6)

List of Abbreviations

ALEC America Legislative Exchange Council

BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons

CCA Correction Corporation of America

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

PIC Prison Industrial Complex

PRV Power a Radical View

QAR Quality Assessment Report

REIT Real Estate Investment Trusts

USMS U.S. Marshals Service

(7)

List of Figures

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

(8)

1 Introduction

Introduction and Research Problem

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

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

(9)

evident part of how the neo-liberal model, which is based on generating economic growth and profit, and prisons' purpose, are contradictory. Among others, Davis (1998) explains how the increase in the prison population is not necessarily corresponding to crime levels. Instead, companies and actors who profit from prisons have contributed to mass incarceration, by pushing for laws and policies, making it easier to arrest and convict, mainly targeting minorities.

She compares the PIC to convict-leasing and claims it to be modern-day slavery, as the companies profit from holding people. Davis uses America as an example when she explains the PIC.

America is home to 5% of the world population and 25% of the world prisoners. The prison population in America has increased by approximately 800% from 1980 with a total population growth of only about 44% (Goodwin 2019); still, crime rates have proportionally decreased or stagnated (FBI 2020).

America, like many countries in the world, operates through the neo-liberal capitalist model. America's GDP growth is around 2-3% per year (The World Bank 2020), an ideal economic growth rate for America (Amadeo 2020).

Following the ideal economic growth rate, private companies, including prisons, should experience 2-3% growth annually. Private prisons' service is to provide everything a convict will need during the incarceration process, which means fewer convicts lead to less profit, as this is a simple question of supply and demand. Thus, there is a clear correlation between profit and prison sentences, which has been the primary concern raised regarding private prisons, as explained by Davis (1998, 2003).

A substantial amount of research has focused on the PIC and its broader implications. The PIC has frequently been studied from a racial perspective where the War On Drugs has been at its core (Alexander 2012; Azikiwe 2018;

Cao 2018; Davis, 1998, 2003; Fornili 2018; Goodwin 2019). More recently, research has focused on how immigration is a new contributor for the PIC (Massey 2019; Moreno 2018; Tosh 2020). However, little attention has

(10)

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

Relevance

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

(11)

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

Private prisons make up approximately 8.5% of prisons in America (Mamun et al. 2020), and thus are a small part of the prison system and equally a small part of the PIC. State operated prisons may only have a fraction of their services outsourced to private companies, who are profiting from and contributing to the PIC (e.g. communications or food services), whereas private prisons are entirely privately operted. Private prisons are of relevance to analyse merely on their visibility, size, and their fully privatised nature.

Ergo, CoreCivic and The GEO Group are excellent cases to examine because they most clearly demonstrate the dynamics of the private sector’s involvement in the prison system and the PIC.

Objective and Research Questions

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

1. How do CoreCivic and The GEO Group operate?

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

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

(12)

Disposition

This study consists of seven chapters, including the introduction chapter.

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

theoretical framework to this study, a clear view of how CoreCivic and The GEO Group have utilised power to maintain the PIC will appear thus validating for the choice to employ the theory.

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

(13)

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

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

(14)

2 Previous Research

A clear negative and critical outlook can be distinguished through the extensive research published on the PIC (e.g., see Craig & Cummings, 2020;

Davis, 1998). Studies question private prisons' incentives, stressing they are no longer a place for reconciliation and justice. Instead, private prisons' political economy and their profit-driven motives, embedded in the neo-liberal capitalist model, are emphasised (Goodwin 2019; Mumford et al. 2016;

Wright 2007). A recent study by Galinato and Rohla (2020) highlights how private prison per capita bed system (where private prions receive government funding for every inmate in their custody) increases new incarceration levels and the sentencing length. Their study additionally highlights how private prisons increase guilty verdicts on drug, weapon, regulatory and fraud crimes.

The PIC is often researched through the lens of racism and modern-day slavery, made possible through the loophole in the 13^th amendment¹ driven by the War on Drugs (Alexander, 2012; Azikiwe 2018; Cao 2018; Davis 2003;

Fornili; 2018; Goodwin, 2019). The same literature highlights how minorities, particularly African Americans, have been targeted and have contributed to their already deceitful image of being criminals and dangerous. An ex- government official has even stated that the War on Drugs is false, solely put in place to target “blacks and anti-war left” (Baus 2016). Angela Davis, one of the main contributors to the field, has in her book Are Prisons Obsolete?

identified a clear relationship between the PIC and convict-leasing (Davis 2003). Research also reveals how many of the convicts are held in prison facilities wrongfully (Bailey 2020).

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

(15)

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

Published research supporting the PIC is virtually non-existent or very old.

Supporters of private prisons have argued in line with neo-liberalism that privatisation creates competition, which improves quality (Moore 1999).

Additionally, Feeley (2002) argues that privatisation of correction systems has increased social control and has led to new and improved innovative solutions for the correctional process (e.g., electronic monitoring surveillance).

However, he still emphasises the negative consequences profit has on the process.

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

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

(16)

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

(17)

3 Analytical Framework

In this chapter, the conceptual and theoretical frameworks will be presented, first, by clarifying the conceptual framework—The Prison Industrial Complex.

Secondly, by explaining the ideas behind the analytical framework used in this research, Steven Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power, and how the theory has been adjusted in this research.

The Prison-Industrial Complex

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

thus, private companies work for profit and are profit driven. Due to their profit-driven motives, the existence of private companies within the correction system has, to a large extent, been questioned (Davis 1998).

The former political prisoner, activist, educator and author, Angela Davis, first coined the concept PIC in her 1998 article Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex (Davis 1998). The name PIC is derived from the Military-Industrial Complex as the ideas behind the two concepts are uncanny.

Both concepts are grounded in the belief that outsourcing state institutions to private actors generate severe consequences (such as armed-conflict and inhuman treatment) on profit bias. The PIC seeks to explain the relationship between the rapid increase in the prison population in America, since the outsourcing of government contracts to the private sector, and the incentives of capitalism. And the PIC clarifies how the increase in the prison population

(18)

Inmates per 100,000 of population

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

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.1 shows the change in Violent Crime, Property Crime, Inmate Population and Total Population in the USA from 1960-2008, per 100.000 of population. Source: Schmitt,

Warner and Gupta (2010) Retrieved from the Centre for Economic and Policy Research.

(19)

Three Dimensions of Power

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

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

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

Therefore, the first dimension focuses on A’s actual or real power over B and is a form of observable behavioural power. Meaning it is visible, and the conflict of interest between each party is apparent. This power is best measured in the decision-making processes, the party who has more “wins'' has more power in social life (Lukes 2005). Bachrach and Baratz (1970, see Lukes 2005) present a critique regarding the first dimension, claiming it is too narrow and focuses too much on behaviour and asks, who chooses what is on the “list”

decisions are based on in the first place. From this standpoint, Bachrach and Baratz (1970, see Lukes 2005) discuss further and claim it necessary to incorporate a second face if one wants to understand and define the concept of power, leading to the second dimension.

The second dimension, The Two-Dimensional View, expands on the critique of the one-dimensional view. In PRV, it is argued that power can be executed through both decision-making and non-decision making (Lukes 2005).

According to Bachrach and Baratz (1970, see Lukes 2005), the second dimension of power can be identified, such as:

(20)

Power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented, for all practical purposes, from bringing to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s set of preferences (Bachrach & Baratz 1970, see Lukes 2005:20).

Here, A ensures B's compliance, therefore, the power is the choice to decide or not to decide, an example of non-decision-making power could then be the power to set the agenda (Lukes 2005). Thus, the second dimension of power can be acknowledged as structural power.

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

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

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

Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power is a commonly used theoretical framework in research (e.g., Haugaard 2020; Klimašauskaitė & Tal; Mulinari &

Vilhelmsson 2019; Rynolds 2019). Lucy Rynolds (2019) applies Lukes’

model to the study of corruption to the health system. She explains how the suppression of public debate may lead to a skewed portrayal of the public’s

(21)

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

3.2.1 Three Dimensions of Power in This Research

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

(22)

4 Methodological Framework

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

Qualitative Desk Study

Qualitative research is a standard research method used in the social sciences.

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

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

(23)

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

Case Study

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

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

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

(24)

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

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning is a type of logical inference built upon one or several observations and seeks to explain those observations' meaning (Bryman 2016).

Abductive reasoning is of interest if you want to understand how individual events and discourses may, be part of, and influence a more general and universal context or structure. Unlike a deductive approach, which starts with a theory or an inductive approach, which is theory building, abduction uses theory as a lens to understand and analyse society. Abductive reasoning produces a credible conclusion but does not truly validate it, thus abductive reason is more expressed in terms such as “most likely” or “best available”

(Bryman 2016; Danermark et al. 2002).

This research follows abductive reasoning as it employed Lukes’ Three Dimensions of Power only as a tool to view and analyse reality. The choice to work abductively was motivated by the work of Danermark et al. (2002).

Danermark et al. (2002) present three core guidelines to consider when determining if abductive reasoning is applicable to research. Danermark et al.

(2002:90) state: “[…] that we (1) have an empirical event/phenomenon (the result), which we (2) relate to a rule, which (3) leads to a new supposition about the event/phenomenon”. They further explain how in social science, the rule more common than not, can be a theory and how the new supposition is a

(25)

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

Text Analysis

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

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

Discourse Analysis

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

(26)

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

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

Investigation

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

(27)

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

Mason (2010 see Bryman 2016) investigated how large the average interview sample size was in 560 qualitative based doctoral theses in Great Britain. The result conveyed a mean of 31 people and a median of 28 people, justifying and determining my sample size of fifteen politicians from each company across a five-year span (three per year between 2016-2020). When choosing whom to investigate random generator was used to exclude human bias and ensure the sample's validity and representativeness (Bryman 2016). For CoreCivic it was decided whom to examine by looking at the company’s year-end lobbying report (retrieved from Disclosurespreview.house.gov 2020), where CoreCivic political candidate contributions are reported. Then a random number generator was used to determine which three politicians to use as the sample.

The action was repeated for every year investigated. The same method was essentially applied for The GEO Group to determine the sample. The GEO Group reports their political contributions through the Federal Election Commission (2020) (in the form of PAC and party commitments reports), monthly instead of annually. Therefore, a random number generator was first used to determine the month, and then again to select which three candidates to investigate. The same method was applied across the five years investigated.

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

(28)

Sources and Validity

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

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

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

work.

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

(29)

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

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

Limitations and Delimitations

When analysing online sources, one limitation can be the quality of data, as companies and people tend to commercialise the information they present.

However, as the study comprehends several different sources to ensure validity and utilises discourse analysis to unveil how CoreCivic and The GEO Group portray themselves, this limitation is not to grave in this study. Another limitation recognised is any classified documents that may not be obtainable, which could contain relevant information for this research.

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

(30)

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

(31)

5 Findings

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

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

Tom Beasley says he and his co-founders launched CoreCivic since:

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

(32)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(33)

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

5.1.1 Services

CoreCivic services come in three segments: CoreCivic Safety, CoreCivic Community and CoreCivic Properties. CoreCivic Safety aims at enhancing public safety through high-quality reinterring programs. The various programs available include educational programs, treatment and behavioural programs, re-entry services, faith-based programs, and victim impact programs.

CoreCivic believes and aims for the programs to strengthen employment, increase social abilities, and reduce recidivism by changing the mind-set of the individual entrusted to their care. CoreCivic Community seeks to provide people with successful re-entry into society through a network of residential centres prior to release, yet again to enhance employment, reintegrate into society, and keep communities safe. In the CoreCivic Properties segment focus lies on the real estate CoreCivic provides. The main aim is to offer innovative and flexible solutions to the government and the people they serve for a great value (CoreCivic 2020c). Basely says:

[…] our real estate and associated services help make positive, real-world impacts on the lives entrusted to our care (CoreCivic 2020a:4).

The GEO Group consists of three different divisions, GEO Secure Services, GEO Care and The GEO Group Foundation. The GEO Secure division focuses on providing state-of-the-art facilities, accommodation, electronic monitoring²,

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

(34)

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

For correctional agencies seeking flexible solutions that hold individuals accountable, enhance public safety and contain costs, GEO Care delivers comprehensive approaches to manage, rehabilitate and treat individuals inside secure settings and throughout the community (The GEO Group 2020b).

Within the division of care further branches can be identified. Two of them, and the most prominent ones, are GEOs Continuum of Care and their Re-entry Services. Continuum of Care offers rehabilitation programs preparing inmates for re-entry into society and focuses on enhanced assessment, counselling, intervention, transition, and aftercare. Some programs offered in this division are educational curriculums, substance abuse treatment and faith-based services. The Re-entry Services is meant for released convicts, to help with reintegration into society. These are mainly for inmates facing high risk for recidivism, by targeting the behavioural factors known to contribute to criminality, through cognitive behavioural treatment. The last division, The GEO Group Foundation, focuses on making a positive change through charitable work in the communities where they operate (The GEO Group 2020b).

5.1.2 Finance and Business

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

(35)

CoreCivic owns or controls around 58% of private prison beds in America.

Moreover, they operate 43 safety facilities, 29 community facilities and leases 28 real estate properties where the government uses 16.1 million square feet directly or indirectly (CoreCivic 2020b). The GEO Group manages around 93,000 beds (74,000 are in America) in 123 facilities and processing centres (63 are in America) (The GEO Group 2020b). Consequently, making CoreCivic the largest private prison operator in America and The GEO Group the second largest. Both companies’ largest customers are federal businesses;

they collect approximately half of its revenue from the ICE, the USMS and the BOP through leasing contracts. The contracts vary between fixed-price payment (most contracts) and non-fixed-payments (a minority of contracts).

The fixed-price payments cover a portion of the total expenses a facility has independent of the number of inmates. Whilst non-fixed-price payments are per dime fair payments, based on the actual headcount of individuals in their custody (CoreCivic 2020b; The GEO Group 2020a).

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

5.1.3 Strengths

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

(36)

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

Finally, the company recognises its strength in size and through its international approach.

5.1.1 Future Development

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

CoreCivic and The GEO Group both see excellent potential for continued development and long-term sustainable growth. They expect the government's ongoing need to rely on private prison companies, both at home and abroad.

Mainly due to the challenges the government faces regarding outdated facilities and the need to maintain, update, and expand their facilities (CoreCivic 2020b, The GEO Group 2020a).

5.1.1 Business Associated Risks

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

(37)

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

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

Like CoreCivic, The GEO Group recognises similar risks facing their business.

The strong dependency on the private-public relationship is identified as a significant risk if outlook and policies regarding private prisons were to change.

Other hindrances include electronic monitoring acceptance and governmental budgeting, which all might affect the company finances. The GEO Group correspondingly sees a potential loss in revenue and profit if a decrease in occupancy at one or several of their non-fixed price contracts facilities would occur (The GEO Group 2020a).

Lobbying, Political Connections and Contributions

Lobbying and financial-political contribution is standard operating practice for private companies. Through such activities, companies ensure their issues on the agenda and steer the political landscape towards a desirable direction. In this part, the findings regarding what CoreCivic and The GEO group say they lobby for and why they give political contributions will be presented.

Following a presentation concerning the findings on what lobbying activities external actors’ emphasis will be given. The next section concerns the investigation on who receives political contribution and where those

(38)

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

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

Both CoreCivic and The GEO Group financially support politicians, political parties and organisations and use the means of lobbying (CoreCivic 2020e;

The GEO Group 2018). In their latest political activity and lobbying reports, each of the companies presented the revenue spent on such activities.

CoreCivic (2020e) announced $879,000.00 spent on political contributions and $2.1 million on lobbying fees and payments. The GEO Group (2018) reported approximately $3.3 million in political donations and roughly $4.3 million in lobbying activities.

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

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

Additionally, CoreCivic say:

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

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

(39)

incarcerated individuals are given the best possible chance to successfully return to their communities and stay out of prison (CoreCivic2020b:39).

The GEO Group presents a similar statement regarding their efforts in lobbying and political and governmental relations:

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

The GEO Group also mentions:

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

5.2.2 Lobbying: External Actors

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

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

Graves 2014).

(40)

One of the most known applications lobbied for by ALEC is their “Report Card on Crime” from 1994, which lists ten proposals aiming at keeping criminals off the streets (Sarabi 2002). The proposals were acknowledged by thousands of elected officials and criminal justice experts across the country.

Several of the proposals later become laws, for example, mandatory minimum sentencing, treating juveniles as adults and the three-strike law (Bender 2000).

The laws consequently made it easier to convict more people for longer (Jayes 2019; Wilce & Graves 2014).

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

If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection (Senate Bill 1070 2010)

In response to the bill, Laura Sullivan (2010) explains how private prisons will gain hundreds of million dollars from housing immigrants. In their study, Moreno and Price (2017) show how CoreCivic and The GEO Group spent more than 90% of their lobbying revenue to push for bills similar to the Arizona Senate Bill 1070. They further explain how lobbying has become a tool to securitise the issue of immigration post 9/11; and how companies such as CoreCivic and The GEO Group are the driving force of such actions.

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

(41)

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

5.2.3 Political Contributions: External Actors

A large majority of both CoreCivic and The GEO Groups financial contributions go to Republicans. The companies both heavily funded the Trump administration in 2016 and 2020 (Federal Election Commission 2020;

Disclosurespreview.house.gov 2020). One explanation regarding the company’s political actions has been that Democrats want to phase out private prisons. Whilst Trump ran a campaign where he emphasised how he would be hard on crime and immigration, consequently favouring private prisons (Fornili 2018).

5.2.4 Political Contributions: Candidate Investigation

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

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

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

Maintaining the Prison-Industrial Complex: Private Actors and Power