The GEO Group, Inc.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2007
|
Commission file
number: 1-14260
The GEO Group, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Florida
|
|
65-0043078
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
One Park Place, Suite 700,
621 Northwest 53rd Street
Boca Raton, Florida
(Address of principal
executive offices)
|
|
33487-8242
(Zip Code)
|
Registrants telephone number (including area code):
(561) 893-0101
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 Par Value
|
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
|
Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No o
Indicate by a check mark if the registrant is not required to
file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d)
of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant (1) has
filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of the registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated
filer þ
|
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
|
Smaller reporting
company o
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the 50,766,973 shares of
common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of
June 29, 2007 (based on the last reported sales price of
such stock on the New York Stock Exchange on such date of $29.10
per share) was approximately $1,477,318,914.
As of February 11, 2008 the registrant had
50,951,368 shares of common stock outstanding.
Certain portions of the registrants annual report to
security holders for fiscal year ended December 30, 2007
are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.
Certain portions of the registrants definitive proxy
statement pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for its 2007 annual meeting of shareholders
are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.
PART I
As used in this report, the terms we,
us, our, GEO and the
Company refer to The GEO Group, Inc., its
consolidated subsidiaries and its unconsolidated affiliates,
unless otherwise expressly stated or the context otherwise
requires.
General
We are a leading provider of government-outsourced services
specializing in the management of correctional, detention and
mental health and residential treatment facilities in the United
States, Canada, Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
We operate a broad range of correctional and detention
facilities including maximum, medium and minimum security
prisons, immigration detention centers, minimum security
detention centers and mental health and residential treatment
facilities. Our correctional and detention management services
involve the provision of security, administrative,
rehabilitation, education, health and food services, primarily
at adult male correctional and detention facilities. Our mental
health and residential treatment services, which are operated
through our wholly-owned subsidiary GEO Care, Inc., involve the
delivery of quality care, innovative programming and active
patient treatment, primarily at privatized state mental health
facilities. We also develop new facilities based on contract
awards, using our project development expertise and experience
to design, construct and finance what we believe are
state-of-the-art facilities that maximize security and
efficiency.
As of the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007, we managed
59 facilities totaling approximately 50,400 beds worldwide and
had an additional 6,800 beds under development at 10 facilities,
including the expansion of five facilities we currently operate
and five new facilities under construction. We also had
approximately 730 additional inactive beds available to meet our
customers potential future demand for bed space. For the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2007, we had consolidated
revenues of $1.02 billion and we maintained an average
companywide facility occupancy rate of 96.8%.
At our correctional and detention facilities in the
U.S. and internationally, we offer services that go beyond
simply housing offenders in a safe and secure manner. The
services we offer to inmates at most of our managed facilities
include a wide array of in-facility rehabilitative and
educational programs such as basic education through academic
programs designed to improve inmates literacy levels and
enhance the opportunity to acquire General Education Development
certificates and vocational training for in-demand occupations
to inmates who lack marketable job skills. We offer life
skills/transition planning programs that provide job search
training and employment skills, anger management skills, health
education, financial responsibility training, parenting skills
and other skills associated with becoming productive citizens.
We also offer counseling, education
and/or
treatment to inmates with alcohol and drug abuse problems at
most of the domestic facilities we manage.
Our mental health facilities and residential treatment services
primarily involve the provision of acute mental health and
related administrative services to mentally ill patients that
have been placed under public sector supervision and care. At
these mental health facilities, we employ psychiatrists,
physicians, nurses, counselors, social workers and other trained
personnel to deliver active psychiatric treatment designed to
diagnose, treat and rehabilitate patients for community
reintegration.
Business
Segments
We conduct our business through four reportable business
segments: our U.S. corrections segment; our International
services segment; our GEO Care segment; and our Facility
construction and design segment. We have identified these four
reportable segments to reflect our current view that we operate
four distinct business lines, each of which constitutes a
material part of our overall business. The U.S. corrections
segment primarily encompasses our
U.S.-based
privatized corrections and detention business. The International
services segment primarily consists of our privatized
corrections and detention operations in South Africa, Australia
and the United Kingdom. International services reviews
opportunities to further diversify into related foreign-based
3
governmental-outsourced services on an ongoing basis. Our GEO
Care segment, which is operated by our wholly-owned subsidiary
GEO Care, Inc., comprises our privatized mental health and
residential treatment services business, all of which is
currently conducted in the U.S. Our facility construction
and design segment primarily consists of contracts with various
state, local and federal agencies for the design and
construction of facilities for which we have management
contracts. Financial information about these segments for fiscal
years 2007, 2006 and 2005 is contained in
Note 16-
Business Segments and Geographic Information of the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included
in this
Form 10-K
and is incorporated herein by this reference.
Recent
Developments
Stock
Split
On May 1, 2007, our Board of Directors declared a
two-for-one stock split of our common stock. The stock split
took effect on June 1, 2007 with respect to stockholders of
record on May 15, 2007. Following the stock split, our
shares outstanding increased from 25.4 million to
50.8 million. All share and per share data included in this
annual report on
Form 10-K
have been adjusted to reflect the stock split.
Public
Equity Offering
On March 23, 2007, we sold in a follow-on public equity
offering 5,462,500 shares of our common stock at a price of
$43.99 per share, (10,925,000 shares of our common stock at
a price of $22.00 per share after giving effect to the
two-for-one stock split). All shares were issued from treasury.
The aggregate net proceeds to us from the offering (after
deducting underwriters discounts and expenses of
$12.8 million) were $227.5 million. On March 26,
2007, we utilized $200.0 million of the net proceeds from
the offering to repay outstanding debt under the Term Loan B
portion of the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the
Senior Credit Facility). We used the balance of the
proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes, which
included working capital, capital expenditures and potential
acquisitions of complementary businesses and other assets.
Acquisition
of CentraCore Properties Trust
On January 24, 2007, we acquired CentraCore Properties
Trust (CPT), a publicly traded real estate
investment trust focused on the corrections industry, for
aggregate consideration of $421.6 million, inclusive of the
payment of approximately $368.3 million in exchange for the
common stock and the options, repayment of approximately
$40.0 million in pre-existing CPT debt and the payment of
approximately $13.3 million in transaction related fees and
expenses. As a result of the acquisition, we gained ownership of
the 7,743 beds we formerly leased from CPT, as well as an
additional 1,126 beds leased to third parties. We financed the
acquisition through the use of $365.0 million in borrowings
under a new term loan and approximately $65.7 million in
cash on hand. We recognized $9.1 million in deferred
financing costs in connection with the refinancing of the debt.
In the first quarter, we used $200.0 million from the
proceeds of our March 2007 equity offering to repay a portion of
the debt and also wrote off $4.8 million of the related
deferred financing fees.
Additional information regarding significant events affecting us
during the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007 is set forth
in Item 7 below under Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Quality
of Operations
We operate each facility in accordance with our company-wide
policies and procedures and with the standards and guidelines
required under the relevant management contract. For many
facilities, the standards and guidelines include those
established by the American Correctional Association, or ACA.
The ACA is an independent organization of corrections
professionals, which establishes correctional facility standards
and guidelines that are generally acknowledged as a benchmark by
governmental agencies responsible for correctional facilities.
Many of our contracts in the United States require us to seek
and maintain ACA accreditation of the facility. We have sought
and received ACA accreditation and re-accreditation for all such
4
facilities. We achieved a median re-accreditation score of 99.2%
in fiscal year 2007. Approximately 67.7% of our 2007
U.S.corrections revenue was derived from ACA accredited
facilities. We have also achieved and maintained certification
by the Joint Commission on Accreditation for Healthcare
Organizations, or JCAHO, for our mental health facilities and
two of our correctional facilities. We have been successful in
achieving and maintaining accreditation under the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care, or NCCHC, in a majority
of the facilities that we currently operate. The NCCHC
accreditation is a voluntary process which we have used to
establish comprehensive health care policies and procedures to
meet and adhere to the ACA standards. The NCCHC standards, in
most cases, exceed ACA Health Care Standards.
Marketing
and Business Proposals
We intend to pursue a diversified growth strategy by winning new
clients and contracts, expanding our government services
portfolio and pursuing selective acquisition opportunities. Our
primary potential customers are governmental agencies
responsible for local, state and federal correctional facilities
in the United States and governmental agencies responsible for
correctional facilities in Australia, South Africa and the
United Kingdom. Other primary customers include state agencies
in the U.S. responsible for mental health facilities, and
other foreign governmental agencies. We achieve organic growth
through competitive bidding that begins with the issuance by a
government agency of a request for proposal, or RFP. We
primarily rely on the RFP process for organic growth in our
U.S. and international corrections operations as well as in
our mental health and residential treatment services business.
Our state and local experience has been that a period of
approximately sixty to ninety days is generally required from
the issuance of a request for proposal to the submission of our
response to the request for proposal; that between one and four
months elapse between the submission of our response and the
agencys award for a contract; and that between one and
four months elapse between the award of a contract and the
commencement of construction of the facility, in the case of a
new facility, or the management of the facility, in the case of
an existing facility.
Our federal experience has been that a period of approximately
sixty to ninety days is generally required from the issuance of
a request for proposal to the submission of our response to the
request for proposal; that between twelve and eighteen months
elapse between the submission of our response and the
agencys award for a contract; and that between four and
eighteen weeks elapse between the award of a contract and the
commencement of construction of the facility, in the case of a
new facility, or the management of the facility in the case of
an existing facility.
If the state, local or federal facility for which an award has
been made must be constructed, our experience is that
construction usually takes between nine and twenty-four months
to complete construction, depending on the size and complexity
of the project; therefore, management of a newly constructed
facility typically commences between ten and twenty-eight months
after the governmental agencys award.
We believe that our long operating history and reputation have
earned us credibility with both existing and prospective
customers when bidding on new facility management contracts or
when renewing existing contracts. Our success in the RFP process
has resulted in a pipeline of new projects with significant
revenue potential. During 2007, we announced eleven new projects
representing 8,751 beds compared to the announcement of ten new
projects representing 4,934 beds during 2006.
In addition to pursuing organic growth through the RFP process,
we will from time to time selectively consider the financing and
construction of new facilities or expansions to existing
facilities on a speculative basis without having a signed
contract with a known customer. We also plan to leverage our
experience to expand the range of government-outsourced services
that we provide. We will continue to pursue selected acquisition
opportunities in our core services and other government services
areas that meet our criteria for growth and profitability. We
have engaged and intend in the future to engage independent
consultants to assist us in developing privatization
opportunities and in responding to requests for proposals,
monitoring the legislative and business climate, and maintaining
relationships with existing customers.
5
Facility
Design, Construction and Finance
We offer governmental agencies consultation and management
services relating to the design and construction of new
correctional and detention facilities and the redesign and
renovation of older facilities. As of December 30, 2007, we
had provided services for the design and construction of
forty-three facilities and for the redesign and renovation and
expansion of twenty-two facilities.
Contracts to design and construct or to redesign and renovate
facilities may be financed in a variety of ways. Governmental
agencies may finance the construction of such facilities through
the following:
|
|
|
|
|
a one time general revenue appropriation by the governmental
agency for the cost of the new facility;
|
|
|
|
general obligation bonds that are secured by either a limited or
unlimited tax levy by the issuing governmental entity; or
|
|
|
|
revenue bonds or certificates of participation secured by an
annual lease payment that is subject to annual or bi-annual
legislative appropriations.
|
We may also act as a source of financing or as a facilitator
with respect to the financing of the construction of a facility.
In these cases, the construction of such facilities may be
financed through various methods including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
funds from equity offerings of our stock;
|
|
|
|
cash flows from our operations;
|
|
|
|
borrowings by us from banks or other institutions (which may or
may not be subject to government guarantees in the event of
contract termination); or
|
|
|
|
lease arrangements with third parties.
|
If the project is financed using direct governmental
appropriations, with proceeds of the sale of bonds or other
obligations issued prior to the award of the project or by us
directly, then financing is in place when the contract relating
to the construction or renovation project is executed. If the
project is financed using project-specific tax-exempt bonds or
other obligations, the construction contract is generally
subject to the sale of such bonds or obligations. Generally,
substantial expenditures for construction will not be made on
such a project until the tax-exempt bonds or other obligations
are sold; and, if such bonds or obligations are not sold,
construction and therefore, management of the facility, may
either be delayed until alternative financing is procured or the
development of the project will be suspended or entirely
cancelled. If the project is self-financed by us, then financing
is generally in place prior to the commencement of construction.
Under our construction and design management contracts, we
generally agree to be responsible for overall project
development and completion. We typically act as the primary
developer on construction contracts for facilities and
subcontract with national general contractors. Where possible,
we subcontract with construction companies that we have worked
with previously. We make use of an in-house staff of architects
and operational experts from various correctional disciplines
(e.g. security, medical service, food service, inmate programs
and facility maintenance) as part of the team that participates
from conceptual design through final construction of the
project. This staff coordinates all aspects of the development
with subcontractors and provides site-specific services.
When designing a facility, our architects use, with appropriate
modifications, prototype designs we have used in developing
prior projects. We believe that the use of these designs allows
us to reduce cost overruns and construction delays and to reduce
the number of correctional officers required to provide security
at a facility, thus controlling costs both to construct and to
manage the facility. Our facility designs also maintain security
because they increase the area under direct surveillance by
correctional officers and make use of additional electronic
surveillance.
6
Competitive
Strengths
Long-Term
Relationships with High-Quality Government
Customers
We have developed long-term relationships with our government
customers and have been successful at retaining our facility
management contracts. We have provided correctional and
detention management services to the United States Federal
Government for 21 years, the State of California for
20 years, the State of Texas for approximately
20 years, various Australian state government entities for
16 years and the State of Florida for approximately
14 years. These customers accounted for 60.6% of our
consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2007. Our strong operating track record has
enabled us to achieve a high renewal rate for contracts, thereby
providing us with a stable source of revenue. Our government
customers typically satisfy their payment obligations to us
through budgetary appropriations.
Diverse,
Full-Service Facility Developer and Operator
We have developed comprehensive expertise in the design,
construction and financing of high quality correctional,
detention and mental health facilities. In addition, we have
extensive experience in overall facility operations, including
staff recruitment, administration, facility maintenance, food
service, healthcare, security, supervision, treatment and
education of inmates. We believe that the breadth of our service
offerings gives us the flexibility and resources to respond to
customers needs as they develop. We believe that the
relationships we foster when offering these additional services
also help us win new contracts and renew existing contracts.
Unique
Privatized Mental Health Growth Platform.
We are the only publicly traded U.S. corrections company
currently operating in the privatized mental health and
residential treatment services business. We believe that our
target market of state and county mental health hospitals
represents a significant opportunity. Through our GEO Care
subsidiary, we have been able to grow this business to 1,700
beds, representing seven contracts and $113.8 million in
revenues in 2007, from 325 beds, representing one contract and
$31.7 million in revenues in 2004.
Sizeable
International Business.
We believe that our international presence gives us a unique
competitive advantage that has contributed to our growth.
Leveraging our operational excellence in the U.S., our
international infrastructure allows us to aggressively target
foreign opportunities that our
U.S.-based
competitors without overseas operations may have difficulty
pursuing. Our International service business generated
$130.3 million revenue in 2007, representing 12.7% of our
consolidated 2007 revenues. We believe we are well positioned to
continue benefiting from foreign governments initiatives
to outsource corrections facilities.
Experienced,
Proven Senior Management Team
Our top three senior executives have over 60 years of
combined industry experience, have worked together at our
company for more than 15 years and have established a track
record of growth and profitability. Under their leadership, our
annual consolidated revenues have grown from $40.0 million
in 1991 to $1.02 billion in 2007. Our Chief Executive
Officer, George C. Zoley, is one of the pioneers of the
industry, having developed and opened what we believe was one of
the first privatized detention facilities in the U.S. in
1986. In addition to senior management, our operational and
facility level management has significant operational experience
and expertise in both the public and private sector.
Regional
Operating Structure
We operate three regional U.S. offices and three
international offices that provide administrative oversight and
support to our correctional and detention facilities and allow
us to maintain close relationships with our customers and
suppliers. Each of our three regional U.S. offices is
responsible for the facilities located within a defined
geographic area. We believe that our regional operating
structure is unique within the U.S. private corrections
industry and provides us with the competitive advantage of
having close proximity and direct
7
access to our customers and our facilities. We believe this
proximity increases our responsiveness and the quality of our
contacts with our customers. We believe that this regional
structure has facilitated the rapid integration of our prior
acquisitions, and we also believe that our regional structure
and international offices will help with the integration of any
future acquisitions.
Business
Strategies
Provide
High Quality, Essential Services at Lower Costs
Our objective is to provide federal, state and local
governmental agencies with high quality, essential services at a
lower cost than they themselves could achieve. We have developed
considerable expertise in the management of facility security,
administration, rehabilitation, education, health and food
services. Our quality is recognized through many accreditations
including that of the American Correctional Association, which
has certified facilities representing approximately 67.7% of our
U.S. corrections revenue as of year-end 2007.
Maintain
Disciplined Operating Approach
We manage our business on a contract by contract basis in order
to maximize our operating margins. We typically refrain from
pursuing contracts that we do not believe will yield attractive
profit margins in relation to the associated operational risks.
In addition, we generally do not engage in facility development
without having a corresponding management contract award in
place, although we may opt to do so in select situations when we
believe attractive business development opportunities may become
available at a given location. We have also elected not to enter
certain international markets with a history of economic and
political instability. We believe that our strategy of
emphasizing lower risk, higher profit opportunities helps us to
consistently deliver strong operational performance, lower our
costs and increase our overall profitability.
Expand
Into Complementary Government-Outsourced Services
We intend to capitalize on our long term relationships with
governmental agencies to become a more diversified provider of
government-outsourced services. These opportunities may include
services which leverage our existing competencies and expertise,
including the design, construction and management of large
facilities, the training and management of a large workforce and
our ability to service the needs and meet the requirements of
government customers. We believe that government outsourcing of
currently internalized functions will increase largely as a
result of the public sectors desire to maintain quality
service levels amid governmental budgetary constraints. We
believe that our successful expansion into the mental health and
residential treatment services sector through GEO Care is an
example of our ability to deliver higher quality services at
lower costs in new areas of privatization.
Pursue
International Growth Opportunities
As a global provider of privatized correctional services, we are
able to capitalize on opportunities to operate existing or new
facilities on behalf of foreign governments. We currently have
international operations in Australia, Canada, South Africa and
the United Kingdom. We intend to further penetrate the current
markets we operate in and to expand into new international
markets which we deem attractive.
Selectively
Pursue Acquisition Opportunities
We consider acquisitions that are strategic in nature and
enhance our geographic platform on an ongoing basis. On
November 4, 2005, we acquired Correctional Services
Corporation, or CSC, bringing over 8,000 additional adult
correctional and detention beds under our management. On
January 24, 2007, we acquired CentraCore Properties Trust,
or CPT, bringing the 7,743 beds we had been leasing from CPT, as
well as an additional 1,126 beds leased to third parties, under
our ownership. We plan to continue to review acquisition
opportunities that may become available in the future, both in
the privatized corrections, detention, mental health and
residential treatment services sectors, and in complementary
government-outsourced services areas.
8
Facilities
The following table summarizes certain information with respect
to facilities that GEO (or a subsidiary or joint venture of GEO)
operated under a management contract or had an award to manage
as of December 30, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
Design
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Type of
|
& Location(1)
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Term, Respectively
|
|
Duration
|
|
Option
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Contracts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allen Correctional Center Kinder, LA
|
|
1,538
|
|
LA DPS&C
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium/ Maximum
|
|
October 2003
|
|
3 years
|
|
One,
Two-year
|
|
Manage
only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona State Prison Florence West Florence, AZ
|
|
750
|
|
ADC
|
|
State DUI/RTC Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
October 2002
|
|
10 years
|
|
Two,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Arizona Correctional Facility Florence, AZ
|
|
1,000
|
|
ADC
|
|
State Sex Offender Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
December 2006
|
|
10 years
|
|
Two,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona State Prison Phoenix West Phoenix, AZ
|
|
450
|
|
ADC
|
|
State DWI Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
July 2002
|
|
10 years
|
|
Two,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aurora ICE Processing Center Aurora, CO
|
|
400 +1,100 expansion
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
October 2006
|
|
8 months
|
|
Four,
One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Clayton Detention Center Littlefield, TX
|
|
370
|
|
Littlefield, TX/ Idaho DOC
|
|
Local/State Correctional/ Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
January 2004/ July 2006
|
|
10 years 2 years
|
|
Two,
Five-year Unlimited One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bridgeport Correctional Center Bridgeport, TX
|
|
520
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
September 2005
|
|
3 year
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bronx Community Re-entry Center Bronx, NY
|
|
120
|
|
BOP
|
|
Federal Halfway House
|
|
Minimum
|
|
October 2007
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three,
One-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brooklyn Community Corrections Center Brooklyn, NY
|
|
174
|
|
BOP
|
|
Federal Halfway House
|
|
Minimum
|
|
February 2005
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three,
One-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broward Transition Center Deerfield Beach, FL
|
|
600
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
October 2003
|
|
1 year
|
|
Four,
One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Texas Detention Facility San Antonio, TX(2)
|
|
688
|
|
Bexar County/ICE & USMS
|
|
Local & Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
October 1996/ June 1993/ January 1983
|
|
3 years
|
|
One,
Two-year One, One-year
|
|
Lease-
County
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Valley MCCF McFarland, CA
|
|
625
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 1997
|
|
15 years (revised term)
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Correctional Center Cleveland, TX
|
|
520
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
January 2004
|
|
3 year
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Desert View MCCF Adelanto, CA
|
|
643
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 1997
|
|
15 years (revised term)
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
Design
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Type of
|
& Location(1)
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Term, Respectively
|
|
Duration
|
|
Option
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East Mississippi Correctional Facility Meridian, MS
|
|
1,000 + 500 expansion
|
|
MDOC/IGA
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
September 2006
|
|
2 years
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Manage
only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fort Worth Community Corrections Facility Fort Worth,
TX
|
|
225
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Halfway House
|
|
Minimum
|
|
September 2003
|
|
2 years
|
|
Two,
Two-year
|
|
Leased
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frio County Detention Center Pearsall, TX(2)
|
|
391
|
|
Frio County/ Other Counties
|
|
Local Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
November 1997
|
|
12 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Part Leased/ Part Owned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George W. Hill Correctional Facility Thornton, PA
|
|
1,883
|
|
Delaware County
|
|
Local Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
June 2006
|
|
18 months
|
|
Successive, Two-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Golden State MCCF McFarland, CA
|
|
625
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 1997
|
|
15 years (revised term)
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graceville Correctional Facility Graceville, FL
|
|
1,500 + 384 expansion
|
|
DMS
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium/ Close
|
|
September 2007
|
|
3 years
|
|
Two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guadalupe County Correctional Facility Santa Rosa, NM(3)
|
|
600
|
|
Guadalupe County/NMCD
|
|
Local/State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
January 1999
|
|
3 years (revised term)
|
|
Five,
one-year extensions beginning 2004
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jefferson County Downtown Jail Beaumont, TX(2)
|
|
500
|
|
Jefferson County/ TDCJ/ ICE/USMS
|
|
Local/State Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
May 1998 August 2005 April 2001
|
|
Various Month to month/ Perpetual
|
|
Unlimited, One-month
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karnes Correctional Center Karnes City, TX(2)
|
|
679
|
|
Karnes County/ ICE & USMS
|
|
Local & Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
May 1998 Feb 1998
|
|
Perpetual
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LaSalle Detention Facility Jena, LA(2)
|
|
416 + 744 expansion
|
|
LEDD/ ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
July 2007
|
|
Perpetual until terminated
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrenceville Correctional Center Lawrenceville, VA
|
|
1,536
|
|
VDOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 2003
|
|
5 years
|
|
Ten,
One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawton Correctional Facility Lawton, OK
|
|
2,518
|
|
ODOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
July 2003
|
|
1 year
|
|
Four,
One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea County Correctional Facility Hobbs, NM(3)
|
|
1,200
|
|
Lea County/ NMCD
|
|
Local/State Correctional Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
September 1998 /May 1998
|
|
5 years
|
|
Five,
One-year beginning 2003
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lockhart Secure Work Program Facilities Lockhart, TX
|
|
1,000
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
January 2004
|
|
3 years
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marshall County Correctional Facility Holly Springs, MS
|
|
1,000
|
|
MDOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
September 2006
|
|
2 years
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
Design
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Type of
|
& Location(1)
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Term, Respectively
|
|
Duration
|
|
Option
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maverick County Detention Facility Maverick, TX(2)
|
|
654
|
|
Maverick County
|
|
Local Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
TBD
|
|
3 Years
|
|
Unlimited, Two-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McFarland CCF McFarland, CA
|
|
224
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
January 2006
|
|
5 years
|
|
Two, Five-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Migrant Operations Center Guantanamo Bay NAS, Cuba
|
|
130
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Migrant Center
|
|
Minimum
|
|
November 2006
|
|
11 Months
|
|
Four, One-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moore Haven Correctional Facility Moore Haven, FL
|
|
985
|
|
DMS
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
July 2007
|
|
3 years
|
|
Unlimited, Two-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montgomery County Detention Facility Montgomery, TX(2)
|
|
1,100
|
|
Montgomery County
|
|
Local Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
TBD
|
|
2 years
|
|
Unspecified number of 2 year options
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Castle Correctional Facility New Castle, IN(2)
|
|
2,416
|
|
IDOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
All
|
|
January 2006
|
|
4 years
|
|
Three,
Two-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newton County Correctional Center Newton, TX
|
|
872
|
|
Newton County/ TDCJ
|
|
Local/State Correctional Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
February 2002
|
|
5 years
init term thru 8/31/07
|
|
Two,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility Clayton, NM
|
|
625
|
|
Clayton/ NMCD
|
|
Local/State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
TBD
|
|
22 years/ 5 years
|
|
Five,
One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Texas ISF Fort Worth, TX
|
|
400
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Intermediate Sanction Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
March 2004
|
|
3 years
|
|
Four,
One-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northwest Detention Center Tacoma, WA
|
|
1,000
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
April 2004
|
|
1 year
|
|
Four,
One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Queens Detention Facility Jamaica, NY
|
|
222
|
|
OFDT/USMS
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
1/08 (new)
|
|
2 year
|
|
Four, 2-year
|
|
Own(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reeves County Detention Complex R1/R2 Pecos, TX(2)
|
|
2,407
|
|
Reeves County/ BOP
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Low
|
|
Feb 2007 BOP 2007
|
|
CO - 10 years 4 yr
|
|
Unlimited, Co ten yr 32-yr op
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reeves County Detention Complex R3 Pecos, TX(2)
|
|
1,356
|
|
Reeves County/BOP
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Low
|
|
Co January 2007 BOP Jan 2007
|
|
10 years 4 yr
|
|
Unlimited, Ten-year 32- yr op
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rio Grande Detention Center Laredo, TX
|
|
1,500
|
|
OFDT/ USMS
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
N/A
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three,
Five-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rivers Correctional Institution Winton, NC
|
|
1,200
|
|
BOP
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Low
|
|
March 2001
|
|
3 years
|
|
Seven,
One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility Lovejoy, GA
|
|
576
|
|
Clayton County
|
|
Detention Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
April 2007
|
|
20 years
|
|
Two,
Five year
|
|
Lease & Manage
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
Design
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Type of
|
& Location(1)
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Term, Respectively
|
|
Duration
|
|
Option
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanders Estes Unit Venus, TX
|
|
1,040
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
January 2004
|
|
3 years
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Bay Correctional Facility South Bay, FL
|
|
1,862
|
|
DMS
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium/ close
|
|
July 2006
|
|
3 years
|
|
Unlimited, Two-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Texas Detention Complex Pearsall, TX
|
|
1,904
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All
|
|
June 2005
|
|
1 year
|
|
Four,
One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Texas ISF Houston, TX
|
|
450
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Intermediate Sanction Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 2004
|
|
3 years
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tri-County Justice & Detention Center Ullin, IL(2)
|
|
226
|
|
Pulaski County/ ICE/USMS
|
|
Local & Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
Co - July 2004 USMS
4/1999
|
|
6 years perpetual
|
|
Two,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Val Verde Correctional Facility Del Rio, TX(2)
|
|
1,451
|
|
Val Verde County/ USMS/ ICE
|
|
Local & Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
January 2001
|
|
20 years
|
|
Unlimited, Five-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Region Detention Facility at San Diego
San Diego, CA
|
|
700
|
|
OFDT/ USMS
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Maximum
|
|
January 2006
|
|
5 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International Contracts: Arthur Gorrie
Correctional Centre Wacol, Australia
|
|
890
|
|
QLD DCS
|
|
Reception & Remand Centre
|
|
High/ Maximum
|
|
January 2008
|
|
5 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fulham Correctional Centre & Nalu Challenge Community
Victoria, Australia
|
|
717/ 68
|
|
VIC MOC
|
|
State Prison
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
September 2005
|
|
3 years
|
|
Four,
Three-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junee Correctional Centre Junee, Australia
|
|
790
|
|
NSW
|
|
State Prison
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
April 2001
|
|
5 years
|
|
One
Three-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centre Limpopo Province, Republic
of South Africa
|
|
3,024
|
|
RSA DCS
|
|
National Prison
|
|
Maximum
|
|
July 1999
|
|
25 years
|
|
None
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Melbourne Custody Centre Melbourne, Australia
|
|
67
|
|
VIC CC
|
|
State Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
March 2005
|
|
3 years
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Brunswick Youth Centre Mirimachi, Canada(4)
|
|
N/A
|
|
PNB
|
|
Provincial Juvenile Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
October 1997
|
|
25 years
|
|
One,
Ten-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pacific Shores Healthcare Victoria, Australia(5)
|
|
N/A
|
|
VIC CV
|
|
Health Care Services
|
|
N/A
|
|
December 2003
|
|
3 years
|
|
Four,
Six-months
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre Kidlington, England
|
|
215
|
|
UK Home Office of Immigration
|
|
Detention Centre
|
|
Minimum
|
|
May 2006
|
|
3 years
|
|
One,
Two-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEO Care:
Florida Civil Commitment Center Arcadia, FL
|
|
680
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Civil Commitment
|
|
All Levels
|
|
July 2006
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
Design
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Type of
|
& Location(1)
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Term, Respectively
|
|
Duration
|
|
Option
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Palm Beach County Jail Palm Beach, FL
|
|
N/A
|
|
PBC as Subcontractor to Healthcare Armor
|
|
Mental Health
Services to County Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
May 2006
|
|
5 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Florida State Hospital Pembroke Pines, FL
|
|
335
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Psychiatric Hospital
|
|
Mental
Health
|
|
July 2003
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fort Bayard Medical Center Ft. Bayard, NM(6)
|
|
230
|
|
State of NM, Department of Health
|
|
Special Needs Long-Term Care Facility
|
|
Special Needs & Long-Term Care
|
|
November 2005
|
|
2 years
|
|
Four,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center Miami, FL
|
|
213
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Forensic Hospital
|
|
Mental
Health
|
|
July 2005
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center -
Annex Miami, FL
|
|
100
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Forensic Hospital
|
|
Mental
Health
|
|
March 2007
|
|
5 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center Stuart, FL
|
|
175
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Forensic Hospital
|
|
Mental
Health
|
|
April 2007
|
|
5 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Manage
Only
|
Customer
Legend:
|
|
|
Abbreviation
|
|
Customer
|
|
LA DPS&C
|
|
Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
|
ADC
|
|
Arizona Department of Corrections
|
ICE
|
|
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
|
TDCJ
|
|
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
|
CDCR
|
|
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
|
MDOC
|
|
Mississippi Department of Corrections (East
Mississippi & Marshall County)
|
NMCD
|
|
New Mexico Corrections Department
|
VDOC
|
|
Virginia Department of Corrections
|
ODOC
|
|
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
|
DMS
|
|
Florida Department of Management Services
|
BOP
|
|
Federal Bureau of Prisons
|
USMS
|
|
United States Marshals Service
|
IDOC
|
|
Indiana Department of Correction
|
QLD DCS
|
|
Department of Corrective Services of the State of Queensland
|
OFDT
|
|
Office of Federal Detention Trustee
|
VIC MOC
|
|
Minister of Corrections of the State of Victoria
|
NSW
|
|
Commissioner of Corrective Services for New South Wales
|
RSA DCS
|
|
Republic of South Africa Department of Correctional Services
|
VIC CC
|
|
The Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police
|
PNB
|
|
Province of New Brunswick
|
VIC CV
|
|
The State of Victoria represented by Corrections Victoria
|
DCF
|
|
Florida Department of Children & Families
|
Idaho DOC
|
|
Idaho Department of Corrections
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
GEO also owns a facility in Baldwin, MI that was not in use
during fiscal year 2007. This facility remains inactive. See
Note 1 of the Financial Statements. |
|
(2) |
|
GEO provides services at this facility through various
Inter-Governmental Agreements, or IGAs, through the various
counties and other jurisdictions. |
13
|
|
|
(3) |
|
GEO has a five-year contract with four one-year options to
operate this facility on behalf a county. The county, in turn,
has a one-year contract, subject to annual renewal, with the
state to house state prisoners at the facility. In the event
that the relationship between the county and the state is
terminated, our contract to operate the respective facility may
be terminated. |
|
(4) |
|
The contract for this facility only requires GEO to provide
maintenance services. |
|
(5) |
|
GEO provides comprehensive healthcare services to nine
(9) government-operated prisons under this contract. |
|
(6) |
|
This contract had expired by December 30, 2007 and is
currently under negotiation. We are still providing services
under this contract and are undertaking efforts to renew our
agreement in the first quarter of 2008. |
New
Project Activations
The following table shows new projects that were activated
during the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Location
|
|
Beds
|
|
|
Client
|
|
Start Date
|
|
Reeves County Detention Complex Expansions
|
|
Pecos, Texas
|
|
|
803
|
|
|
Federal Bureau of Prisons
|
|
Jan-07
|
Northwest Detention Center
|
|
Tacoma, Washington
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
|
|
Jan-07
|
Broward Transition Center
|
|
Deerfield Beach, Florida
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
|
|
Jan-07
|
South Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center Annex
|
|
Miami, Florida
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
Florida Department of Children & Families
|
|
Mar-07
|
New Castle Correctional Facility Inmate Contract
|
|
New Castle, Indiana
|
|
|
1,260
|
|
|
Arizona Department of Corrections
|
|
Mar-07
|
Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center
|
|
Indiantown, Florida
|
|
|
175
|
|
|
Florida Department of Children & Families
|
|
Apr-07
|
Moore Haven Correctional Facility Expansion
|
|
Moore Haven, Florida
|
|
|
235
|
|
|
Florida Department of Management Services
|
|
Jul-07
|
Graceville Correctional Facility
|
|
Graceville, Florida
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
Florida Department of Management Services
|
|
Sep-07
|
LaSalle Detention Facility
|
|
Jena, Louisiana
|
|
|
416
|
|
|
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
|
|
Oct-07
|
Val Verde Correctional Facility Expansion
|
|
Del Rio, Texas
|
|
|
576
|
|
|
U.S. Marshals Service
|
|
Dec-07
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
5,415
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract
Terminations
Taft
Correctional Institution
On April 26, 2007, we announced that the Federal Bureau of
Prisons awarded a contract for the management of the 2,048-bed
Taft Correctional Institution, which we have managed since 1997,
to another private operator. The management contract, which was
competitively re-bid, was transitioned to the alternative
operator effective August 20, 2007. We do not expect the
loss of this contract to have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition or results of operations.
14
Dickens
County Correctional Center
In July 2007, we cancelled the Operations and Management
contract with Dickens County for the management of the 489-bed
facility located in Spur, Texas. The cancellation became
effective on December 28, 2007. We have operated the
management contract since the acquisition of CSC in November
2005. We do not expect that the termination of this contract to
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or
results of operations.
Coke
County Juvenile Justice Center
On October 2, 2007, we received notice of the termination
of our contract with the Texas Youth Commission for the housing
of juvenile inmates at the 200-bed Coke County Juvenile Justice
Center located in Bronte, Texas. We are in the preliminary
stages of reviewing the termination of this contract. However,
we do not expect the termination, or any liability that may
arise with respect to such termination, to have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition or results of
operations.
Government
Contracts Terminations, Renewals and Competitive
Re-bids
Generally, we may lose our facility management contracts due to
one of three reasons: the termination by a government customer
with or without cause at any time; the failure by a customer to
renew a contract with us upon the expiration of the then current
term; or our failure to win the right to continue to operate
under a contract that has been competitively re-bid in a
procurement process upon its termination or expiration. Our
facility management contracts typically allow a contracting
governmental agency to terminate a contract with or without
cause at any time by giving us written notice ranging from 30 to
180 days. If government agencies were to use these
provisions to terminate, or renegotiate the terms of their
agreements with us, our financial condition and results of
operations could be materially adversely affected. See
Risk Factors We are subject to the loss
of our facility management contracts due to terminations,
non-renewals or re-bids, which could adversely affect our
results of operations and liquidity, including our ability to
secure new facility management contracts from other government
customers.
Aside from our customers unilateral right to terminate our
facility management contracts with them at any time for any
reason, there are two points during the typical lifecycle of a
contract which may result in the loss by us of a facility
management contract with our customers. We refer to these points
as contract renewals and contract
re-bids. Many of our facility management contracts
with our government customers have an initial fixed term and
subsequent renewal rights for one or more additional periods at
the unilateral option of the customer. We count each government
customers right to renew a particular facility management
contract for an additional period as a separate
renewal. For example, a five-year initial fixed term
contract with customer options to renew for five separate
additional one-year periods would, if fully exercised, be
counted as five separate renewals, with one renewal coming in
each of the five years following the initial term. As of
December 30, 2007, 18 of our facility management contracts
representing 14,896 beds are scheduled to expire on or before
December 31, 2008, unless renewed by the customer at its
sole option. These contracts represented 24% of our consolidated
revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. We
undertake substantial efforts to renew our facility management
contracts. Our historical facility management contract renewal
rate exceeds 90%. However, given their unilateral nature, we
cannot assure you that our customers will in fact exercise their
renewal options under existing contracts. In addition, in
connection with contract renewals, either we or the contracting
government agency have typically requested changes or
adjustments to contractual terms. As a result, contract renewals
may be made on terms that are more or less favorable to us than
in those in existence prior to the renewals.
We define competitive re-bids as contracts currently under our
management which we believe, based on our experience with the
customer and the facility involved, will be re-bid to us and
other potential service providers in a competitive procurement
process upon the expiration or termination of our contract,
assuming all renewal options are exercised. Our determination of
which contracts we believe will be competitively re-bid may in
some cases be subjective and judgmental, based largely on our
knowledge of the dynamics involving a particular contract, the
customer and the facility involved. Competitive re-bids may
result from the
15
expiration of the term of a contract, including the initial
fixed term plus any renewal periods, or the early termination of
a contract by a customer. Competitive re-bids are often required
by applicable federal or state procurement laws periodically in
order to further continuous competitive pricing and other terms
for the government customer. Potential bidders in competitive
re-bid situations include us, other private operators and other
government entities. While we are pleased with our historical
win rate on competitive re-bids and are committed to continuing
to bid competitively on appropriate future competitive re-bid
opportunities, we cannot in fact assure you that we will prevail
in future competitive re-bid situations. Also, we cannot assure
that any competitive re-bids we win will be on terms more
favorable to us than those in existence with respect to the
expiring contract.
The following table sets forth the number of facility management
contracts that we currently believe will be subject to
competitive re-bid in each of the next five years and
thereafter, and the total number of beds relating to those
potential competitive re-bid situations during each period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Re-bid
|
|
|
Total Number of Beds up for Re-bid
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
5,856
|
|
2009
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
2010
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
3,665
|
|
2011
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
3,345
|
|
2012
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
2,903
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
18,877
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
40,046
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competition
We compete primarily on the basis of the quality and range of
services we offer; our experience domestically and
internationally in the design, construction, and management of
privatized correctional and detention facilities; our
reputation; and our pricing. We compete directly with the public
sector, where governmental agencies responsible for the
operation of correctional, detention and mental health and
residential treatment facilities are often seeking to retain
projects that might otherwise be privatized. In the private
sector, our U.S. corrections and International services
business segments compete with a number of companies, including,
but not limited to: Corrections Corporation of America; Cornell
Companies, Inc.; Management and Training Corporation; Group 4
Securicor, Global Solutions, and Serco. Our GEO Care business
segment competes with a number of different small-to-medium
sized companies, reflecting the highly fragmented nature of the
mental health and residential treatment services industry. Some
of our competitors are larger and have more resources than we
do. We also compete in some markets with small local companies
that may have a better knowledge of the local conditions and may
be better able to gain political and public acceptance.
Employees
and Employee Training
At December 30, 2007, we had 11,037 full-time
employees. Of such full-time employees, 222 were employed at our
headquarters and regional offices and 10,815 were employed at
facilities and international offices. We employ management,
administrative and clerical, security, educational services,
health services and general maintenance personnel at our various
locations. Approximately 561 and 1,024 employees are
covered by collective bargaining agreements in the United States
and at international offices, respectively. We believe that our
relations with our employees are satisfactory.
Under the laws applicable to most of our operations, and
internal company policies, our correctional officers are
required to complete a minimum amount of training. We generally
require at least 160 hours of pre-service training before
an employee is allowed to work in a position that will bring the
employee in contact with inmates in our domestic facilities,
consistent with ACA standards
and/or
applicable state laws. In addition to a minimum of
160 hours of pre-service training, most states require 40
or 80 hours of on-the-job
16
training. Florida law requires that correctional officers
receive 520 hours of training. We believe that our training
programs meet or exceed all applicable requirements.
Our training program for domestic facilities begins with
approximately 40 hours of instruction regarding our
policies, operational procedures and management philosophy.
Training continues with an additional 120 hours of
instruction covering legal issues, rights of inmates, techniques
of communication and supervision, interpersonal skills and job
training relating to the particular position to be held. Each of
our employees, who has contact with inmates receives a minimum
of 40 hours of additional training each year, and each
manager receives at least 24 hours of training each year.
At least 240 and 160 hours of training are required for our
employees in Australia and South Africa, respectively, before
such employees are allowed to work in positions that will bring
them into contact with inmates. Our employees in Australia and
South Africa receive a minimum of 40 hours of additional
training each year. In the United Kingdom, our corrections
employees also receive a minimum of 240 hours prior to
coming in contact with inmates and receive additional training
of approximately 25 hours annually.
Business
Regulations and Legal Considerations
Many governmental agencies are required to enter into a
competitive bidding procedure before awarding contracts for
products or services. The laws of certain jurisdictions may also
require us to award subcontracts on a competitive basis or to
subcontract or partner with businesses owned by women or members
of minority groups.
Certain states, such as Florida, deem correctional officers to
be peace officers and require our personnel to be licensed and
subject to background investigation. State law also typically
requires correctional officers to meet certain training
standards.
The failure to comply with any applicable laws, rules or
regulations or the loss of any required license could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations. Furthermore, our current and future
operations may be subject to additional regulations as a result
of, among other factors, new statutes and regulations and
changes in the manner in which existing statutes and regulations
are or may be interpreted or applied. Any such additional
regulations could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Insurance
The nature of our business exposes us to various types of
third-party legal claims, including, but not limited to, civil
rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with our
facilities, programs, personnel or prisoners, including damages
arising from a prisoners escape or from a disturbance or
riot at a facility. In addition, our management contracts
generally require us to indemnify the governmental agency
against any damages to which the governmental agency may be
subject in connection with such claims or litigation. We
maintain insurance coverage for these general types of claims,
except for claims relating to employment matters, for which we
carry no insurance.
We currently maintain a general liability policy for all
U.S. corrections operations with limits of
$62.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. On
October 1, 2004, we increased our deductible on this
general liability policy from $1.0 million to
$3.0 million for each claim occurring after October 1,
2004. GEO Care, Inc. is separately insured for general and
professional liability. Coverage is maintained with limits of
$10.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate subject
to a $3.0 million self-insured retention. We also maintain
insurance to cover property and casualty risks, workers
compensation, medical malpractice, environmental liability and
automobile liability. Our Australian subsidiary is required to
carry tail insurance on a general liability policy providing an
extended reporting period through 2011 related to a discontinued
17
contract. We also carry various types of insurance with respect
to our operations in South Africa, United Kingdom and Australia.
There can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be
adequate to cover all claims to which we may be exposed.
In addition, certain of our facilities located in Florida and
determined by insurers to be in high-risk hurricane areas carry
substantial windstorm deductibles. Since hurricanes are
considered unpredictable future events, no reserves have been
established to pre-fund for potential windstorm damage. Limited
commercial availability of certain types of insurance relating
to windstorm exposure in coastal areas and earthquake exposure
mainly in California may prevent us from insuring our facilities
to full replacement value.
Since our insurance policies generally have high deductible
amounts, losses are recorded when reported and a further
provision is made to cover losses incurred but not reported.
Loss reserves are undiscounted and are computed based on
independent actuarial studies. Because we are significantly
self-insured, the amount of our insurance expense is dependent
on our claims experience and our ability to control our claims
experience. If actual losses related to insurance claims
significantly differ from our estimates, our financial condition
and results of operations could be materially impacted.
In April 2007, we incurred significant damages at one of our
managed-only facilities in New Castle, Indiana. The total amount
of impairments, losses recognized and expenses incurred has been
recorded in the accompanying statements of income as operating
expenses and is offset by $2.1 million of insurance
proceeds we received from our insurance carriers in January 2008.
International
Operations
Our international operations for fiscal years 2007 and 2006
consisted of the operations of our wholly-owned Australian
subsidiaries, and of our consolidated joint venture in South
Africa (South African Custodial Management Pty. Limited, or
SACM). Through our wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Group Australia
Pty. Limited, we currently manage five facilities in Australia.
We operate one facility in South Africa through SACM. During the
fourth quarter of 2004, we opened an office in the United
Kingdom to pursue new business opportunities throughout Europe.
On March 6, 2006, we were awarded a contract to manage the
operations of the 198 bed Campsfield House in Kidlington, United
Kingdom. We began operations under this contract in the second
quarter of 2006. Also in October 2006, we acquired United
Kingdom based Recruitment Solutions International
(RSI) which operated during the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2007. See Item 7 for more discussion
related to the results of our international operations.
Financial information about our operations in different
geographic regions appears in Item 8. Financial
Statements Note 16 Business Segment and
Geographic Information.
Business
Concentration
Except for the major customers noted in the following table, no
other single customers that made up greater than 10% of our
consolidated revenues for these years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
Various agencies of the U.S. Federal Government
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
27
|
%
|
Various agencies of the State of Florida
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
Available
Information
Additional information about us can be found at
www.thegeogroupinc.com. We make available on our website,
free of charge, access to our Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q,
Current Reports on
Form 8-K,
our annual proxy statement on Schedule 14A and amendments
to those materials filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we
electronically submit such materials to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or the SEC. In addition, the SEC makes
available on its website, free of charge, reports, proxy and
information statements, and other information regarding issuers
that file electronically with the SEC, including
18
GEO. The SECs website is located at
http://www.sec.gov.
Information provided on our website or on the SECs website
is not part of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Item 1A. Risk
Factors
The following are certain of the risks to which our business
operations are subject. Any of these risks could materially
adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results
of operations. These risks could also cause our actual results
to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking
statements contained herein and elsewhere. The risks described
below are not the only risks facing us. Additional risks not
currently known to us or those we currently deem to be
immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business
operations.
Risks
Related to Our High Level of Indebtedness
Our
significant level of indebtedness could adversely affect our
financial condition and prevent us from fulfilling our debt
service obligations.
We have a significant amount of indebtedness. Our total
consolidated long-term indebtedness as of December 30, 2007
was $309.3 million, including the current portion of
$3.7 million and excluding non recourse debt of
$138.0 million and capital lease liability balances of
$16.6 million. In addition, as of December 30, 2007,
we had $63.5 million outstanding in letters of credit under
the revolving loan portion of our senior secured credit
facility. As a result, as of that date, we would have had the
ability to borrow an additional approximately $86.5 million
under the revolving loan portion of our Senior Credit Facility,
subject to our satisfying the relevant borrowing conditions
under the Senior Credit Facility with respect to the incurrence
of additional indebtedness.
Our substantial indebtedness could have important consequences.
For example, it could:
|
|
|
|
|
require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow
from operations to payments on our indebtedness, thereby
reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund working
capital, capital expenditures, and other general corporate
purposes;
|
|
|
|
limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes
in our business and the industry in which we operate;
|
|
|
|
increase our vulnerability to adverse economic and industry
conditions;
|
|
|
|
place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors
that may be less leveraged; and
|
|
|
|
limit our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance
existing indebtedness on favorable terms.
|
If we are unable to meet our debt service obligations, we may
need to reduce capital expenditures, restructure or refinance
our indebtedness, obtain additional equity financing or sell
assets. We may be unable to restructure or refinance our
indebtedness, obtain additional equity financing or sell assets
on satisfactory terms or at all. In addition, our ability to
incur additional indebtedness will be restricted by the terms of
our Senior Credit Facility and the indenture governing our
outstanding
81/4% Senior
Unsecured Notes, referred to as the Notes.
Despite
current indebtedness levels, we may still incur more
indebtedness, which could further exacerbate the risks described
above. Future indebtedness issued pursuant to our universal
shelf registration statement could have rights superior to those
of our existing or future indebtedness.
The terms of the indenture governing the Notes and our Senior
Credit Facility restrict our ability to incur but do not
prohibit us from incurring significant additional indebtedness
in the future. As of December 30, 2007, we would have had
the ability to borrow an additional $86.5 million under the
revolving loan portion of our Senior Credit Facility, subject to
our satisfying the relevant borrowing conditions under the
Senior Credit Facility and the indenture governing the Notes. In
addition, we may refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness,
including borrowings under our Senior Credit Facility
and/or the
Notes. The terms of such
19
refinancing may be less restrictive and permit us to incur more
indebtedness than we can now. If new indebtedness is added to
our and our subsidiaries current debt levels, the related
risks that we and they now face could intensify. Additionally,
on March 13, 2007, we filed a universal shelf registration
statement with the SEC, which became effective immediately upon
filing. The universal shelf registration statement provides for
the offer and sale by us, from time to time, on a delayed basis
of an indeterminate aggregate amount of certain of our
securities, including debt securities. Such debt securities
could have rights superior to those of our existing indebtedness.
The
covenants in the indenture governing the Notes and our Senior
Credit Facility impose significant operating and financial
restrictions which may adversely affect our ability to operate
our business.
The indenture governing the Notes and our Senior Credit Facility
impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us
and certain of our subsidiaries, which we refer to as restricted
subsidiaries. These restrictions limit our ability to, among
other things:
|
|
|
|
|
incur additional indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
pay dividends and or distributions on our capital stock,
repurchase, redeem or retire our capital stock, prepay
subordinated indebtedness, make investments;
|
|
|
|
issue preferred stock of subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
make certain types of investments;
|
|
|
|
guarantee other indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
create liens on our assets;
|
|
|
|
transfer and sell assets;
|
|
|
|
create or permit restrictions on the ability of our restricted
subsidiaries to make dividends or make other distributions to us;
|
|
|
|
enter into sale/leaseback transactions;
|
|
|
|
enter into transactions with affiliates; and
|
|
|
|
merge or consolidate with another company or sell all or
substantially all of our assets.
|
These restrictions could limit our ability to finance our future
operations or capital needs, make acquisitions or pursue
available business opportunities. In addition, our Senior Credit
Facility requires us to maintain specified financial ratios and
satisfy certain financial covenants, including maintaining
maximum senior and total leverage ratios, a minimum fixed charge
coverage ratio, a minimum net worth and a limit on the amount of
our annual capital expenditures. Some of these financial ratios
become more restrictive over the life of the Senior Credit
Facility. We may be required to take action to reduce our
indebtedness or to act in a manner contrary to our business
objectives to meet these ratios and satisfy these covenants. Our
failure to comply with any of the covenants under our Senior
Credit Facility and the indenture governing the Notes could
cause an event of default under such documents and result in an
acceleration of all of our outstanding indebtedness. If all of
our outstanding indebtedness were to be accelerated, we likely
would not be able to simultaneously satisfy all of our
obligations under such indebtedness, which would materially
adversely affect our financial condition and results of
operations.
Servicing
our indebtedness will require a significant amount of cash. Our
ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our
control.
Our ability to make payments on our indebtedness and to fund
planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to
generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is
subject to general economic, financial, competitive,
legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our
control.
20
Our business may not be able to generate sufficient cash flow
from operations or future borrowings may not be available to us
under our Senior Credit Facility or otherwise in an amount
sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness or new debt
securities, or to fund our other liquidity needs. We may need to
refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before
maturity. However, we may not be able to complete such
refinancing on commercially reasonable terms or at all.
Because
portions of our senior indebtedness have floating interest
rates, a general increase in interest rates will adversely
affect cash flows.
Borrowings under our Senior Credit Facility bear interest at a
variable rate. As a result, to the extent our exposure to
increases in interest rates is not eliminated through interest
rate protection agreements, such increases will result in higher
debt service costs which will adversely affect our cash flows.
We do not currently have any interest rate protection agreements
in place to protect against interest rate fluctuations related
to our Senior Credit Facility. Based on estimated borrowings of
$162.3 million outstanding under the Senior Credit Facility
as of December 30, 2007, a one percent increase in the
interest rate applicable to the Senior Credit Facility, would
increase our annual interest expense by $1.6 million.
In addition, effective September 18, 2003, we entered into
interest rate swap agreements in the aggregate notional amount
of $50.0 million. The agreements, which have payment and
expiration dates that coincide with the payment and expiration
terms of the Notes, effectively convert $50.0 million of
the Notes into variable rate obligations. Under the agreements,
we receive a fixed interest rate payment from the financial
counterparties to the agreements equal to 8.25% per year
calculated on the notional $50.0 million amount, while we
make a variable interest rate payment to the same counterparties
equal to the six-month London Interbank Offered Rate plus a
fixed margin of 3.45%, also calculated on the notional
$50.0 million amount. As a result, for every one percent
increase in the interest rate applicable to the swap agreements,
our annual interest expense would increase by $0.5 million.
We
depend on distributions from our subsidiaries to make payments
on our indebtedness. These distributions may not be
made.
We generate a substantial portion of our revenues from
distributions on the equity interests we hold in our
subsidiaries. Therefore, our ability to meet our payment
obligations on our indebtedness is substantially dependent on
the earnings of our subsidiaries and the payment of funds to us
by our subsidiaries as dividends, loans, advances or other
payments. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal
entities and are not obligated to make funds available for
payment of our other indebtedness in the form of loans,
distributions or otherwise. Our subsidiaries ability to
make any such loans, distributions or other payments to us will
depend on their earnings, business results, the terms of their
existing and any future indebtedness, tax considerations and
legal or contractual restrictions to which they may be subject.
If our subsidiaries do not make such payments to us, our ability
to repay our indebtedness may be materially adversely affected.
For the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007, our
subsidiaries accounted for 34.4% of our consolidated revenue,
and, as of December 30, 2007, our subsidiaries accounted
for 11.4% of our total segment assets.
Risks
Related to Our Business and Industry
We are
subject to the loss of our facility management contracts, due to
terminations, non-renewals or competitive rebids, which could
adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity,
including our ability to secure new facility management
contracts from other government customers.
We are exposed to the risk that we may lose our facility
management contracts primarily due to one of three reasons: the
termination by a government customer with or without cause at
any time; the failure by a customer to exercise its unilateral
option to renew a contract with us upon the expiration of the
then current term; or our failure to win the right to continue
to operate under a contract that has been competitively re-bid
in a procurement process upon its termination or expiration. Our
facility management contracts typically allow a contracting
governmental agency to terminate a contract with or without
cause at any time by giving us written notice ranging from 30 to
180 days. If government agencies were to use these
provisions to terminate,
21
or renegotiate the terms of their agreements with us, our
financial condition and results of operations could be
materially adversely affected.
Aside from our customers unilateral right to terminate our
facility management contracts with them at any time for any
reason, there are two points during the typical lifecycle of a
contract which may result in the loss by us of a facility
management contract with our customers. We refer to these points
as contract renewals and contract
re-bids. Many of our facility management contracts
with our government customers have an initial fixed term and
subsequent renewal rights for one or more additional periods at
the unilateral option of the customer. We count each government
customers right to renew a particular facility management
contract for an additional period as a separate
renewal. For example, a five-year initial fixed term
contract with customer options to renew for five separate
additional one-year periods would, if fully exercised, be
counted as five separate renewals, with one renewal coming in
each of the five years following the initial term. As of
December 30, 2007, 18 of our facility management contracts
representing 14,896 beds are scheduled to expire on or before
December 31, 2008, unless renewed by the customer at its
sole option. These contracts represented 24% of our consolidated
revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. We
undertake substantial efforts to renew our facility management
contracts. Our historical facility management contract renewal
rate exceeds 90%. However, given their unilateral nature, we
cannot assure you that our customers will in fact exercise their
renewal options under existing contracts. In addition, in
connection with contract renewals, either we or the contracting
government agency have typically requested changes or
adjustments to contractual terms. As a result, contract renewals
may be made on terms that are more or less favorable to us than
in those in existence prior to the renewals.
We define competitive as re-bids contracts currently under our
management which we believe, based on our experience with the
customer and the facility involved, will be re-bid to us and
other potential service providers in a competitive procurement
process upon the expiration or termination of our contract,
assuming all renewal options are exercised. Our determination of
which contracts we believe will be competitively re-bid may in
some cases be subjective and judgmental, based largely on our
knowledge of the dynamics involving a particular contract, the
customer and the facility involved. Competitive re-bids may
result from the expiration of the term of a contract, including
the initial fixed term plus any renewal periods, or the early
termination of a contract by a customer. competitive re-bids are
often required by applicable federal or state procurement laws
periodically in order to further continuous competitive pricing
and other terms for the government customer. Potential bidders
in competitive re-bid situations include us, other private
operators and other government entities. While we are pleased
with our historical win rate on competitive re-bids and are
committed to continuing to bid competitively on appropriate
future competitive re-bid opportunities, we cannot in fact
assure you that we will prevail in future re-bid situations.
Also, we cannot assure that any competitive re-bids we win will
be on terms more favorable to us than those in existence with
respect to the expiring contract.
For additional information on facility management contracts that
we currently believe will be competitively re-bid during each of
the next five years and thereafter, please see
Business Government Contracts
Terminations, Renewals and Re-bids. The loss by us of
facility management contracts due to terminations, non-renewals
or competitive re-bids could materially adversely affect our
financial condition, results of operations and liquidity,
including our ability to secure new facility management
contracts from other government customers.
Our
growth depends on our ability to secure contracts to develop and
manage new correctional, detention and mental health facilities,
the demand for which is outside our control.
Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new
contracts to develop and manage new correctional, detention and
mental health facilities, because contracts to manage existing
public facilities have not to date typically been offered to
private operators. Public sector demand for new privatized
facilities in our areas of operation lines may decrease and our
potential for growth will depend on a number of factors we
cannot control, including overall economic conditions,
governmental and public acceptance of the concept of
privatization, government budgetary constraints, and the number
of facilities available for privatization.
22
In particular, the demand for our correctional and detention
facilities and services could be adversely affected by changes
in existing criminal or immigration laws, crime rates in
jurisdictions in which we operate, the relaxation of criminal or
immigration enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction,
sentencing or deportation practices, and the decriminalization
of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal
laws or the loosening of immigration laws. For example, any
changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and
controlled substances could affect the number of persons
arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby
potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house
them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to
reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring
incarceration at correctional facilities. Immigration reform
laws which are currently a focus for legislators and politicians
at the federal, state and local level also could materially
adversely impact us. Various factors outside our control could
adversely impact the growth our GEO Care business, including
government customer resistance to the privatization of mental
health or residential treatment facilities, and changes to
Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement programs.
We may
not be able to secure financing and land for new facilities,
which could adversely affect our results of operations and
future growth.
In certain cases, the development and construction of facilities
by us is subject to obtaining construction financing. Such
financing may be obtained through a variety of means, including
without limitation, the sale of tax-exempt or taxable bonds or
other obligations or direct governmental appropriations. The
sale of tax-exempt or taxable bonds or other obligations may be
adversely affected by changes in applicable tax laws or adverse
changes in the market for tax-exempt or taxable bonds or other
obligations.
Moreover, certain jurisdictions, including California, where we
have a significant amount of operations, have in the past
required successful bidders to make a significant capital
investment in connection with the financing of a particular
project. If this trend were to continue in the future, we may
not be able to obtain sufficient capital resources when needed
to compete effectively for facility management contacts.
Additionally, our success in obtaining new awards and contracts
may depend, in part, upon our ability to locate land that can be
leased or acquired under favorable terms. Otherwise desirable
locations may be in or near populated areas and, therefore, may
generate legal action or other forms of opposition from
residents in areas surrounding a proposed site. Our inability to
secure financing and desirable locations for new facilities
could adversely affect our results of operations and future
growth.
We
depend on a limited number of governmental customers for a
significant portion of our revenues. The loss of, or a
significant decrease in business from, these customers could
seriously harm our financial condition and results of
operations.
We currently derive, and expect to continue to derive, a
significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of
governmental agencies. Of our 40 governmental clients, four
customers accounted for over 50% of our consolidated revenues
for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007. In addition,
the three federal governmental agencies with correctional and
detention responsibilities, the Bureau of Prisons,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which we refer to
as ICE, and the Marshals Service, accounted for 25.8% of our
total consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2007, with the Bureau of Prisons accounting
for 7.4% of our total consolidated revenues for such period, ICE
accounting for 10.1% of our total consolidated revenues for such
period, and the Marshals Service accounting for 8.3% of our
total consolidated revenues for such period. Also, government
agencies from the State of Florida accounted for 15.4% of our
total consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2007. The loss of, or a significant decrease
in, business from the Bureau of Prisons, ICE, U.S. Marshals
Service, the State of Florida or any other significant customers
could seriously harm our financial condition and results of
operations. We expect to continue to depend upon these federal
agencies and a relatively small group of other governmental
customers for a significant percentage of our revenues.
23
A
decrease in occupancy levels could cause a decrease in revenues
and profitability.
While a substantial portion of our cost structure is generally
fixed, most of our revenues are generated under facility
management contracts which provide for per diem payments based
upon daily occupancy. Several of these contracts provide minimum
revenue guarantees for us, regardless of occupancy levels, up to
a specified maximum occupancy percentage. However, many of our
contracts have no minimum revenue guarantees and simply provide
for a fixed per diem payment for each inmate/detainee/patient
actually housed. As a result, with respect to our contracts that
have no minimum revenue guarantees and those that guarantee
revenues only up to a certain specified occupancy percentage, we
are highly dependent upon the governmental agencies with which
we have contracts to provide inmates, detainees and patients for
our managed facilities. Generally, absent the surfacing concerns
regarding the quality of our services, we cannot control
occupancy levels at our managed facilities. Under a per diem
rate structure, a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a
decrease in revenues and profitability. When combined with
relatively fixed costs for operating each facility, regardless
of the occupancy level, a material decrease in occupancy levels
at one or more of our facilities could have a material adverse
effect on our revenues and profitability, and consequently, on
our financial condition and results of operations.
Competition
for inmates may adversely affect the profitability of our
business.
We compete with government entities and other private operators
on the basis of cost, quality and range of services offered,
experience in managing facilities, and reputation of management
and personnel. Barriers to entering the market for the
management of correctional and detention facilities may not be
sufficient to limit additional competition in our industry. In
addition, our government customers may assume the management of
a facility currently managed by us upon the termination of the
corresponding management contract or, if such customers have
capacity at the facilities which they operate, they may take
inmates currently housed in our facilities and transfer them to
government operated facilities. Since we are paid on a per diem
basis with no minimum guaranteed occupancy under most of our
contracts, the loss of such inmates and resulting decrease in
occupancy would cause a decrease in both our revenues and our
profitability.
We are
dependent on government appropriations, which may not be made on
a timely basis or at all and may be adversely impacted by
budgetary constraints at the federal, state and local
levels.
Our cash flow is subject to the receipt of sufficient funding of
and timely payment by contracting governmental entities. If the
contracting governmental agency does not receive sufficient
appropriations to cover its contractual obligations, it may
terminate our contract or delay or reduce payment to us. Any
delays in payment, or the termination of a contract, could have
a material adverse effect on our cash flow and financial
condition, which may make it difficult to satisfy our payment
obligations on our indebtedness, including the Notes and the
Senior Credit Facility, in a timely manner. In addition, as a
result of, among other things, recent economic developments,
federal, state and local governments have encountered, and may
continue to encounter, unusual budgetary constraints. As a
result, a number of state and local governments are under
pressure to control additional spending or reduce current levels
of spending which could limit or eliminate appropriations for
the facilities that we operate. Additionally, as a result of
these factors, we may be requested in the future to reduce our
existing per diem contract rates or forego prospective increases
to those rates. Budgetary limitations may also make it more
difficult for us to renew our existing contracts on favorable
terms or at all.
Public
resistance to privatization of correctional and detention
facilities could result in our inability to obtain new contracts
or the loss of existing contracts, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations.
The management and operation of correctional and detention
facilities by private entities has not achieved complete
acceptance by either governments or the public. Some
governmental agencies have limitations on their ability to
delegate their traditional management responsibilities for
correctional and detention facilities to private companies and
additional legislative changes or prohibitions could occur that
further increase these limitations. In addition, the movement
toward privatization of correctional and detention facilities
has
24
encountered resistance from groups, such as labor unions, that
believe that correctional and detention facilities should only
be operated by governmental agencies. Changes in dominant
political parties could also result in significant changes to
previously established views of privatization. Increased public
resistance to the privatization of correctional and detention
facilities in any of the markets in which we operate, as a
result of these or other factors, could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
Our
GEO Care business, which has become a material part of our
consolidated revenues, poses unique risks not associated with
our other businesses.
Our wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Care, Inc., operates our mental
health and residential treatment services division. This
business primarily involves the delivery of quality care,
innovative programming and active patient treatment at
privatized state mental health facilities, jails, sexually
violent offender facilities and long-term care facilities. GEO
Cares business has increased substantially over the last
few years, both in general and as a percentage of our overall
business. For the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007, GEO
Care generated approximately $113.8 million in revenues,
representing 11.1% of our consolidated revenues. GEO Cares
business poses several material risks unique to the operation of
privatized mental health facilities and the delivery of mental
health and residential treatment services that do not exist in
our core business of correctional and detention facilities
management, including, but not limited to, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the concept of the privatization of the mental health and
residential treatment services provided by GEO Care has not yet
achieved general acceptance by either governments or the public,
which could materially limit GEO Cares growth prospects;
|
|
|
|
GEO Cares business is highly dependent on the continuous
recruitment, hiring and retention of a substantial pool of
qualified physicians, nurses and other medically trained
personnel which may not be available in the quantities or
locations sought, or on the employment terms offered;
|
|
|
|
GEO Cares business model often involves taking over
outdated or obsolete facilities and operating them while it
supervises the construction and development of new, more updated
facilities; during this transition period, GEO Care may be
particularly vulnerable to operational difficulties primarily
relating to or resulting from the deteriorating nature of the
older existing facilities; and
|
|
|
|
the facilities operated by GEO Care are substantially dependent
on government funding, including in some cases the receipt of
Medicare and Medicaid funding; the loss of such government
funding for any reason with respect to any facilities operated
by GEO Care could have a material adverse impact on our business.
|
Adverse
publicity may negatively impact our ability to retain existing
contracts and obtain new contracts. Our business is subject to
public scrutiny.
Any negative publicity about an escape, riot or other
disturbance or perceived poor conditions at a privately managed
facility may result in publicity adverse to us and the private
corrections industry in general. Any of these occurrences or
continued trends may make it more difficult for us to renew
existing contracts or to obtain new contracts or could result in
the termination of an existing contract or the closure of one or
more of our facilities, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business.
We may
incur significant
start-up and
operating costs on new contracts before receiving related
revenues, which may impact our cash flows and not be
recouped.
When we are awarded a contract to manage a facility, we may
incur significant
start-up and
operating expenses, including the cost of constructing the
facility, purchasing equipment and staffing the facility, before
we receive any payments under the contract. These expenditures
could result in a significant reduction in our cash reserves and
may make it more difficult for us to meet other cash
obligations, including our payment obligations on the Notes and
the Senior Credit Facility. In addition, a contract may be
terminated prior to its
25
scheduled expiration and as a result we may not recover these
expenditures or realize any return on our investment.
Failure
to comply with extensive government regulation and applicable
contractual requirements could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition or results of
operations.
The industry in which we operate is subject to extensive
federal, state and local regulation, including educational,
environmental, health care and safety laws, rules and
regulations, which are administered by many regulatory
authorities. Some of the regulations are unique to the
corrections industry, and the combination of regulations affects
all areas of our operations. Corrections officers and juvenile
care workers are customarily required to meet certain training
standards and, in some instances, facility personnel are
required to be licensed and are subject to background
investigations. Certain jurisdictions also require us to award
subcontracts on a competitive basis or to subcontract with
businesses owned by members of minority groups. We may not
always successfully comply with these and other regulations to
which we are subject and failure to comply can result in
material penalties or the non-renewal or termination of facility
management contracts. In addition, changes in existing
regulations could require us to substantially modify the manner
in which we conduct our business and, therefore, could have a
material adverse effect on us.
In addition, private prison managers are increasingly subject to
government legislation and regulation attempting to restrict the
ability of private prison managers to house certain types of
inmates, such as inmates from other jurisdictions or inmates at
medium or higher security levels. Legislation has been enacted
in several states, and has previously been proposed in the
United States House of Representatives, containing such
restrictions. Although we do not believe that existing
legislation will have a material adverse effect on us, future
legislation may have such an effect on us.
Governmental agencies may investigate and audit our contracts
and, if any improprieties are found, we may be required to
refund amounts we have received, to forego anticipated revenues
and we may be subject to penalties and sanctions, including
prohibitions on our bidding in response to Requests for
Proposals, or RFPs, from governmental agencies to manage
correctional facilities. Governmental agencies we contract with
have the authority to audit and investigate our contracts with
them. As part of that process, governmental agencies may review
our performance of the contract, our pricing practices, our cost
structure and our compliance with applicable laws, regulations
and standards. For contracts that actually or effectively
provide for certain reimbursement of expenses, if an agency
determines that we have improperly allocated costs to a specific
contract, we may not be reimbursed for those costs, and we could
be required to refund the amount of any such costs that have
been reimbursed. If a government audit asserts improper or
illegal activities by us, we may be subject to civil and
criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including
termination of contracts, forfeitures of profits, suspension of
payments, fines and suspension or disqualification from doing
business with certain governmental entities. Any adverse
determination could adversely impact our ability to bid in
response to RFPs in one or more jurisdictions.
In addition to compliance with applicable laws and regulations,
our facility management contracts typically have numerous
requirements addressing all aspects of our operations which we
may not all be able to satisfy. For example, our contracts
require us to maintain certain levels of coverage for general
liability, workers compensation, vehicle liability, and
property loss or damage. If we do not maintain the required
categories and levels of coverage, the contracting governmental
agency may be permitted to terminate the contract. In addition,
we are required under our contracts to indemnify the contracting
governmental agency for all claims and costs arising out of our
management of facilities and, in some instances, we are required
to maintain performance bonds relating to the construction,
development and operation of facilities. Facility management
contracts also typically include reporting requirements,
supervision and
on-site
monitoring by representatives of the contracting governmental
agencies. Failure to properly adhere to the various terms of our
customer contracts could expose us to liability for damages
relating to any breaches as well as the loss of such contracts,
which could materially adversely impact us.
26
We may
face community opposition to facility location, which may
adversely affect our ability to obtain new
contracts.
Our success in obtaining new awards and contracts sometimes
depends, in part, upon our ability to locate land that can be
leased or acquired, on economically favorable terms, by us or
other entities working with us in conjunction with our proposal
to construct
and/or
manage a facility. Some locations may be in or near populous
areas and, therefore, may generate legal action or other forms
of opposition from residents in areas surrounding a proposed
site. When we select the intended project site, we attempt to
conduct business in communities where local leaders and
residents generally support the establishment of a privatized
correctional or detention facility. Future efforts to find
suitable host communities may not be successful. In many cases,
the site selection is made by the contracting governmental
entity. In such cases, site selection may be made for reasons
related to political
and/or
economic development interests and may lead to the selection of
sites that have less favorable environments.
Our
business operations expose us to various liabilities for which
we may not have adequate insurance.
The nature of our business exposes us to various types of
third-party legal claims, including, but not limited to, civil
rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with our
facilities, programs, personnel or prisoners, including damages
arising from a prisoners escape or from a disturbance or
riot at a facility. In addition, our management contracts
generally require us to indemnify the governmental agency
against any damages to which the governmental agency may be
subject in connection with such claims or litigation. We
maintain insurance coverage for these general types of claims,
except for claims relating to employment matters, for which we
carry no insurance. However, we generally have high deductible
payment requirements on our primary insurance policies,
including our general liability insurance, and there are also
varying limits on the maximum amount of our overall coverage. As
a result, the insurance we maintain to cover the various
liabilities to which we are exposed may not be adequate. Any
losses relating to matters for which we are either uninsured or
for which we do not have adequate insurance could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations. In addition, any losses relating to
employment matters could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations.
We may
not be able to obtain or maintain the insurance levels required
by our government contracts.
Our government contracts require us to obtain and maintain
specified insurance levels. The occurrence of any events
specific to our company or to our industry, or a general rise in
insurance rates, could substantially increase our costs of
obtaining or maintaining the levels of insurance required under
our government contracts, or prevent us from obtaining or
maintaining such insurance altogether. If we are unable to
obtain or maintain the required insurance levels, our ability to
win new government contracts, renew government contracts that
have expired and retain existing government contracts could be
significantly impaired, which could have a material adverse
affect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
Our
international operations expose us to risks which could
materially adversely affect our financial condition and results
of operations.
For the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007, our
international operations accounted for approximately 12.7% of
our consolidated revenues. We face risks associated with our
operations outside the U.S. These risks include, among
others, political and economic instability, exchange rate
fluctuations, taxes, duties and the laws or regulations in those
foreign jurisdictions in which we operate. In the event that we
experience any difficulties arising from our operations in
foreign markets, our business, financial condition and results
of operations may be materially adversely affected.
27
We
conduct certain of our operations through joint ventures, which
may lead to disagreements with our joint venture partners and
adversely affect our interest in the joint
ventures.
We conduct our operations in South Africa through joint ventures
with third parties and may enter into additional joint ventures
in the future. Our joint venture agreements generally provide
that the joint venture partners will equally share voting
control on all significant matters to come before the joint
venture. Our joint venture partners may have interests that are
different from ours which may result in conflicting views as to
the conduct of the business of the joint venture. In the event
that we have a disagreement with a joint venture partner as to
the resolution of a particular issue to come before the joint
venture, or as to the management or conduct of the business of
the joint venture in general, we may not be able to resolve such
disagreement in our favor and such disagreement could have a
material adverse effect on our interest in the joint venture or
the business of the joint venture in general.
We are
dependent upon our senior management and our ability to attract
and retain sufficient qualified personnel.
We are dependent upon the continued service of each member of
our senior management team, including George C. Zoley, our
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Wayne H. Calabrese, our
Vice Chairman and President, and John G. ORourke, our
Chief Financial Officer. Under the terms of their retirement
agreements, each of these executives is currently eligible to
retire at any time from GEO and receive significant lump sum
retirement payments. The unexpected loss of any of these
individuals could materially adversely affect our business,
financial condition or results of operations. We do not maintain
key-man life insurance to protect against the loss of any of
these individuals.
In addition, the services we provide are labor-intensive. When
we are awarded a facility management contract or open a new
facility, depending on the service we have been contracted to
provide, we may need to hire operating management, correctional
officers, security staff, physicians, nurses and other qualified
personnel. The success of our business requires that we attract,
develop and retain these personnel. Our inability to hire
sufficient qualified personnel on a timely basis or the loss of
significant numbers of personnel at existing facilities could
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations.
Our
profitability may be materially adversely affected by
inflation.
Many of our facility management contracts provide for fixed
management fees or fees that increase by only small amounts
during their terms. While a substantial portion of our cost
structure is generally fixed, if, due to inflation or other
causes, our operating expenses, such as costs relating to
personnel, utilities, insurance, medical and food, increase at
rates faster than increases, if any, in our facility management
fees, then our profitability could be materially adversely
affected.
Various
risks associated with the ownership of real estate may increase
costs, expose us to uninsured losses and adversely affect our
financial condition and results of operations.
Our ownership of correctional and detention facilities subjects
us to risks typically associated with investments in real
estate. Investments in real estate, and in particular,
correctional and detention facilities, are relatively illiquid
and, therefore, our ability to divest ourselves of one or more
of our facilities promptly in response to changed conditions is
limited. Investments in correctional and detention facilities,
in particular, subject us to risks involving potential exposure
to environmental liability and uninsured loss. Our operating
costs may be affected by the obligation to pay for the cost of
complying with existing environmental laws, ordinances and
regulations, as well as the cost of complying with future
legislation. In addition, although we maintain insurance for
many types of losses, there are certain types of losses, such as
losses from earthquakes, riots and acts of terrorism, which may
be either uninsurable or for which it may not be economically
feasible to obtain insurance coverage, in light of the
substantial costs associated with such insurance. As a result,
we could lose both our capital invested in, and anticipated
profits from, one or more of the facilities we own. Further,
even if we have insurance for a particular loss, we may
experience losses that may exceed the limits of our coverage.
28
We are
currently self-financing a number of large capital projects
simultaneously, which exposes us to several material
risks.
We are currently self-financing the simultaneous construction or
expansion of several correctional and detention facilities in
multiple jurisdictions. As of December 30, 2007, we were in
the process of constructing or expanding 13 facilities
representing 8,000 total beds, one of which we will lease to
another party and 12 of which we will operate. We are providing
the financing for six of the 13 facilities, representing 4,700
beds. Total capital expenditures related to these projects is
expected to be $249.4 million, of which $102.1 million
was completed through year end 2007. We expect to incur at least
another approximately $93.8 million in capital expenditures
relating to these owned projects through the fiscal year 2009.
Additionally, financing for the remaining seven facilities
representing 3,300 beds is being provided for by state or
counties for their ownership. We are managing the construction
of these projects with total costs of $188.4 million, of
which $94.8 million has been completed through year end
2007 and $93.6 million remains to be completed through
2009. The concurrent development of these various large capital
projects exposes us to material risks. For example, we may not
complete some or all of the projects on time or on budget, which
could cause us to lose a facility management contract with our
customer relating to any such project, or to absorb any losses
associated with any delays. Also, with respect to the six owned
facilities under development or expansion, we have facility
management contracts with respect to 3,600 beds but do not have
a contracted user/agency with respect to the remaining 1,100
beds. With respect to the seven facilities under development,
which will be managed only facilities, we have facility
management contracts with respect to 1,000 beds but do not have
a contracted user/agency with respect to the remaining 2,300
beds. While we are working diligently with a number of different
customers for the use of these remaining beds and believe that
the overall demand for bed space in our industry remains strong,
we cannot in fact assure you that contracts for the beds will be
secured on a timely basis, or at all. Additionally, we have used
our cash from operations to fund owned projects and may in the
future finance owned projects with borrowings under our Senior
Credit Facility. The large capital commitments that these
projects will require over the next
12-18 month
period may materially strain our liquidity and our borrowing
capacity for other purposes. Capital constraints caused by these
projects may also cause us to have to refinance our existing
indebtedness or incur more indebtedness on terms less favorable
than those we currently have in place.
Risks
related to facility construction and development activities may
increase our costs related to such activities.
When we are engaged to perform construction and design services
for a facility, we typically act as the primary contractor and
subcontract with other companies who act as the general
contractors. As primary contractor, we are subject to the
various risks associated with construction (including, without
limitation, shortages of labor and materials, work stoppages,
labor disputes and weather interference) which could cause
construction delays. In addition, we are subject to the risk
that the general contractor will be unable to complete
construction at the budgeted costs or be unable to fund any
excess construction costs, even though we typically require
general contractors to post construction bonds and insurance.
Under such contracts, we are ultimately liable for all late
delivery penalties and cost overruns.
The
rising cost and increasing difficulty of obtaining adequate
levels of surety credit on favorable terms could adversely
affect our operating results.
We are often required to post performance bonds issued by a
surety company as a condition to bidding on or being awarded a
facility development contract. Availability and pricing of these
surety commitments is subject to general market and industry
conditions, among other factors. Recent events in the economy
have caused the surety market to become unsettled, causing many
reinsurers and sureties to reevaluate their commitment levels
and required returns. As a result, surety bond premiums
generally are increasing. If we are unable to effectively pass
along the higher surety costs to our customers, any increase in
surety costs could adversely affect our operating results. In
addition, we may not continue to have access to surety credit or
be able to secure bonds economically, without additional
collateral, or at the levels required for any potential facility
development or contract bids. If we are unable to obtain
adequate levels of surety credit on favorable
29
terms, we would have to rely upon letters of credit under our
Senior Credit Facility, which would entail higher costs even if
such borrowing capacity was available when desired, and our
ability to bid for or obtain new contracts could be impaired.
We may
not be able to successfully identify, consummate or integrate
acquisitions.
We have an active acquisition program, the objective of which is
to identify suitable acquisition targets that will enhance our
growth. The pursuit of acquisitions may pose certain risks to
us. We may not be able to identify acquisition candidates that
fit our criteria for growth and profitability. Even if we are
able to identify such candidates, we may not be able to acquire
them on terms satisfactory to us. We will incur expenses and
dedicate attention and resources associated with the review of
acquisition opportunities, whether or not we consummate such
acquisitions. Additionally, even if we are able to acquire
suitable targets on agreeable terms, we may not be able to
successfully integrate their operations with ours. We may also
assume liabilities in connection with acquisitions that we would
otherwise not be exposed to.
Risks
Related to our Common Stock
Fluctuations
in the stock market as well as general economic, market and
industry conditions may harm the market price of our common
stock.
The market price of our common stock has been subject to
significant fluctuation. The market price of our common stock
may continue to be subject to significant fluctuations in
response to operating results and other factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
actual or anticipated quarterly fluctuations in our financial
results, particularly if they differ from investors
expectations;
|
|
|
|
changes in financial estimates and recommendations by securities
analysts;
|
|
|
|
general economic, market and political conditions, including war
or acts of terrorism, not related to our business;
|
|
|
|
actions of our competitors and changes in the market valuations,
strategy and capability of our competitors;
|
|
|
|
our ability to successfully integrate acquisitions and
consolidations; and
|
|
|
|
changes in the prospects of the privatized corrections and
detention industry.
|
In addition, the stock market in recent years has experienced
price and volume fluctuations that often have been unrelated or
disproportionate to the operating performance of companies.
These fluctuations, may harm the market price of our common
stock, regardless of our operating results.
Future
sales of our common stock in the public market could adversely
affect the trading price of our common stock that we may issue
and our ability to raise funds in new securities
offerings.
Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the
public market, or the perception that such sales could occur,
could adversely affect prevailing trading prices of our common
stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through
future offerings of equity or equity-related securities. We
cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales of shares
of common stock or the availability of shares of common stock
for future sale will have on the trading price of our common
stock.
Various
anti-takeover protections applicable to us may make an
acquisition of us more difficult and reduce the market value of
our common stock.
We are a Florida corporation and the anti-takeover provisions of
Florida law impose various impediments to the ability of a third
party to acquire control of our company, even if a change of
control would be beneficial to our shareholders. In addition,
provisions of our articles of incorporation may make an
acquisition of us more difficult. Our articles of incorporation
authorize the issuance by our board of directors of blank
30
check preferred stock without shareholder approval. Such
shares of preferred stock could be given voting rights, dividend
rights, liquidation rights or other similar rights superior to
those of our common stock, making a takeover of us more
difficult and expensive. We also have adopted a shareholder
rights plan, commonly known as a poison pill, which
could result in the significant dilution of the proportionate
ownership of any person that engages in an unsolicited attempt
to take over our company and, accordingly, could discourage
potential acquirors. In addition to discouraging takeovers, the
anti-takeover provisions of Florida law and our articles of
incorporation, as well as our shareholder rights plan, may have
the impact of reducing the market value of our common stock.
Failure
to maintain effective internal controls in accordance with
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could have an
adverse effect on our business and the trading price of our
common stock.
If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, in
accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as such standards are modified,
supplemented or amended from time to time, our exposure to fraud
and errors in accounting and financial reporting could
materially increase. Also, inadequate internal controls would
likely prevent us from concluding on an ongoing basis that we
have effective internal control over financial reporting in
accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. Such failure to achieve and maintain effective internal
controls could adversly impact our business and the price of our
common stock.
We may
issue additional debt securities that could limit our operating
flexibility and negatively affect the value of our common
stock.
In the future, we may issue additional debt securities which may
be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing
covenants that could place restrictions on the operation of our
business and the execution of our business strategy in addition
to the restrictions on our business already contained in the
agreements governing our existing debt. In addition, we may
choose to issue debt that is convertible or exchangeable for
other securities, including our common stock, or that has
rights, preferences and privileges senior to our common stock.
Because any decision to issue debt securities will depend on
market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we
cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of any
future debt financings and we may be required to accept
unfavorable terms for any such financings. Accordingly, any
future issuance of debt could dilute the interest of holders of
our common stock and reduce the value of our common stock.
Because
we do not intend to pay dividends, shareholders will benefit
from an investment in our common stock only if it appreciates in
value.
We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to
finance the further expansion and continued growth of our
business and do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the
foreseeable future. As a result, the success of an investment in
our common stock will depend upon any future appreciation in its
value. There is no guarantee that our common stock will
appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which
shareholders purchase their shares.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
Our corporate offices are located in Boca Raton, Florida, under
a
101/2
-year lease which was renewed in October 2007. The current lease
has two
5-year
renewal options and expires in March of 2018. In addition, we
lease office space for our eastern regional office in Charlotte,
North Carolina; our central regional office in New Braunfels,
Texas; and our western regional office in Carlsbad, California.
We also lease office space in Sydney, Australia, in Sandton,
South Africa, and in Berkshire, England through our overseas
affiliates to support our Australian, South African, and UK
operations, respectively.
31
See Facilities listing under Item 1 for a list
of the correctional, detention and mental health properties we
own or lease in connection with our operations.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
On September 15, 2006, a jury in an inmate wrongful death
lawsuit in a Texas state court awarded a $47.5 million
verdict against us. In October 2006, the verdict was entered as
a judgment against us in the amount of $51.7 million. The
lawsuit is being administered under the insurance program
established by The Wackenhut Corporation, our former parent
company, in which we participated until October 2002. Policies
secured by us under that program provide $55.0 million in
aggregate annual coverage. As a result, we believe we are fully
insured for all damages, costs and expenses associated with the
lawsuit and as such we have not taken any reserves in connection
with the matter. The lawsuit stems from an inmate death which
occurred at our former Willacy County State Jail in
Raymondville, Texas, in April 2001, when two inmates at the
facility attacked another inmate. Separate investigations
conducted internally by us, The Texas Rangers and the Texas
Office of the Inspector General exonerated us and our employees
of any culpability with respect to the incident. We believe that
the verdict is contrary to law and unsubstantiated by the
evidence. Our insurance carrier has posted a supersedeas bond in
the amount of approximately $60.0 million to cover the
judgment. On December 9, 2006, the trial court denied our
post trial motions and we filed a notice of appeal on
December 18, 2006. The appeal is proceeding.
In June 2004, we received notice of a third-party claim for
property damage incurred during 2001 and 2002 at several
detention facilities that our Australian subsidiary formerly
operated. The claim relates to property damage caused by
detainees at the detention facilities. The notice was given by
the Australian governments insurance provider and did not
specify the amount of damages being sought. In August 2007,
legal proceedings in this matter were formally commenced when
the Company was served with notice of a complaint filed against
it by the Commonwealth of Australia (the Plaintiff)
seeking damages of up to approximately AUS 18.0 million or
$15.8 million as of December 30, 2007. We believe that
we have several defenses to the allegations underlying the
litigation and the amounts sought and intend to vigorously
defend our rights with respect to this matter. Although the
outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty, based
on information known to date and our preliminary review of the
claim, we believe that, if settled unfavorably, this matter
could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows. Furthermore, we are unable
to determine the losses, if any, that we will incur under the
litigation should the matter be resolved unfavorably to us. We
are uninsured for any damages or costs that we may incur as a
result of this claim, including the expenses of defending the
claim. We have established a reserve based on our estimate of
the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances
known to date and the advice of our legal counsel in connection
with this matter.
On January 30, 2008, a lawsuit seeking class action
certification was filed against us by an inmate at one of our
jails. The case is entitled Bussy v. The GEO Group, Inc.
(Civil Action
No. 08-467))
and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges that we have a
companywide blanket policy at our immigration/detention
facilities and jails that requires all new inmates and detainees
to undergo a strip search upon intake into each facility. The
plaintiff alleges that this practice, to the extent implemented,
violates the civil rights of the affected inmates and detainees.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for all purported class
members, a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the
alleged policy from being implemented in the future. We are in
the initial stages of investigating this claim. However,
following our preliminary review, we believe we have several
defenses to the allegations underlying this litigation and
intend to vigorously defend our rights in this matter.
Nevertheless, we believe that, if resolved unfavorably, this
matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition and results of operations.
The nature of our business exposes us to various types of claims
or litigation against us, including, but not limited to, civil
rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, indemnification claims by our
32
customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims
for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with
our facilities, programs, personnel or prisoners, including
damages arising from a prisoners escape or from a
disturbance or riot at a facility. Except as otherwise disclosed
above, we do not expect the outcome of any pending claims or
legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
No matters were submitted to a vote of our shareholders during
the thirteen weeks ended December 30, 2007.
33
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Securities
|
Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol GEO. The following table shows the high and
low prices for our common stock, as reported by the New York
Stock Exchange, for each of the four quarters of fiscal years
2007 and 2006 and reflects the effect of the June 1, 2007
stock split. The prices shown have been rounded to the nearest
$1/100. The approximate number of shareholders of record as of
February 11, 2008, was 124 which includes shares held in
street name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Quarter
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
First
|
|
$
|
25.00
|
|
|
$
|
18.73
|
|
|
$
|
11.11
|
|
|
$
|
7.37
|
|
Second
|
|
|
29.29
|
|
|
|
23.08
|
|
|
|
13.22
|
|
|
|
10.77
|
|
Third
|
|
|
32.21
|
|
|
|
26.55
|
|
|
|
15.34
|
|
|
|
10.96
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
31.63
|
|
|
|
23.10
|
|
|
|
20.00
|
|
|
|
14.11
|
|
We did not pay any cash dividends on our common stock for fiscal
years 2007 and 2006. We intend to retain our earnings to finance
the growth and development of our business and do not anticipate
paying cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable
future. Future dividends, if any, will depend, on our future
earnings, our capital requirements, our financial condition and
on such other factors as our Board of Directors may take into
consideration. In addition, the indenture governing our
$150.0 million
81/4% senior
notes due in 2013, and our $365.0 million senior credit
facility, of which $162.3 was outstanding as of
December 30, 2007, also place material restrictions on our
ability to pay dividends. See Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis, Cash Flow and
Liquidity and Item 8. Financial
Statements
Note 11-Debt
for further description of these restrictions.
We did not buy back any of our common stock during 2007 or 2006.
On May 1, 2007, our Board of Directors declared a
two-for-one stock split of our common stock. The stock split
took effect on June 1, 2007 with respect to stockholders of
record on May 15, 2007. Following the stock split, our
shares outstanding increased from 25.4 million to
50.8 million. All per share amounts have been
retro-actively restated to reflect the
2-for-1
stock split.
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The following table sets forth information about our common
stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options, warrants
and rights under all of our equity compensation plans as of
December 30, 2007, including our 1994 Second Stock Option
Plan, our 1999 Stock Option Plan, our 2006 Stock Incentive Plan
and our 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan. Our
shareholders have approved all of these plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Issuance Under
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
Equity Compensation
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Plans (Excluding
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Securities Reflected in
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Column (a))
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
2,770,082
|
|
|
$
|
7.15
|
|
|
|
225,028
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,770,082
|
|
|
$
|
7.15
|
|
|
|
225,028
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
Performance
Graph
The following performance graph compares the performance of our
common stock to the New York Stock Exchange Composite Index and
to an index of peer companies we selected, and is provided in
accordance with Item 201(e) of
Regulation S-K.
Comparison
of Five-Year Cumulative Total Return*
The GEO Group, Inc., Wilshire 500 Equity, and
S&P 500 Commercial Services and Supplies Indexes
(Performance through December 30, 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S&P 500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
|
The GEO
|
|
|
Wilshire 5000
|
|
|
Services and
|
Date
|
|
|
Group, Inc.
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
Supplies
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
$
|
205.22
|
|
|
|
$
|
131.65
|
|
|
|
$
|
123.66
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
$
|
239.24
|
|
|
|
$
|
148.09
|
|
|
|
$
|
133.17
|
|
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
$
|
206.39
|
|
|
|
$
|
157.53
|
|
|
|
$
|
139.07
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
$
|
506.57
|
|
|
|
$
|
182.38
|
|
|
|
$
|
158.67
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
$
|
756.08
|
|
|
|
$
|
192.62
|
|
|
|
$
|
138.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2002 in The GEO
Group, Inc. common stock and the Index companies.
|
|
|
* |
|
Total return assumes reinvestment of dividends. |
35
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The selected consolidated financial data should be read in
conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the
notes to the consolidated financial statements (in thousands,
except per share data).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended:(1)
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Results of Continuing Operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
1,024,832
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
860,882
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
612,900
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
593,994
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
549,238
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Operating income from continuing operations
|
|
|
95,836
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
|
|
64,201
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
7,938
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
38,991
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
|
29,500
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
41,265
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
30,308
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
5,879
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
17,163
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
36,375
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic:
|
|
$
|
.0.87
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
$
|
0.84
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
47,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,442
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,152
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,854
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
49,192
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,744
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,214
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,488
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Condition:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$
|
264,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
322,754
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
229,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
222,766
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
191,811
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
186,432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
173,703
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136,519
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117,478
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
118,704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
1,192,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
743,453
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
639,511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
480,326
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
505,341
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including current portion (excluding
non-recourse debt and capital leases)
|
|
|
309,273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
154,259
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
220,004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198,204
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
245,086
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
527,705
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
248,610
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
108,594
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
99,739
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
77,325
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts/awards
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facilities in operation
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design capacity of contracts
|
|
|
57,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,370
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,287
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensated resident days(2)
|
|
|
16,982,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,788,208
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,607,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,458,102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,389,821
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our fiscal year ends on the Sunday closest to the calendar year
end. The fiscal year ended January 2, 2005 contained
53 weeks. Discontinued Operations have not been included
with Selected Financial Data. Information related to
Discontinued Operations is listed in Item 8.
Financial Statements Note 4 Discontinued
Operations. |
|
(2) |
|
Compensated resident days are calculated as follows:
(a) for per diem rate facilities the number of
beds occupied by residents on a daily basis during the fiscal
year; and (b) for fixed rate facilities the
design capacity of the facility multiplied by the number of days
the facility was in operation during the fiscal year. Amounts
exclude compensated resident days for United Kingdom for fiscal
years 2003 to 2005. |
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
Introduction
The following discussion and analysis provides information which
management believes is relevant to an assessment and
understanding of our consolidated results of operations and
financial condition. This discussion contains forward-looking
statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual
results may differ materially from those anticipated in these
forward-looking statements as a result of numerous factors
including, but not limited to, those described above under
Item 1A. Risk Factors, and
Forward-Looking Statements Safe Harbor
below. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the
consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.
We are a leading provider of government-outsourced services
specializing in the management of correctional, detention and
mental health and residential treatment facilities in the United
States, Australia,
36
South Africa, the United Kingdom and Canada. We operate a broad
range of correctional and detention facilities including
maximum, medium and minimum security prisons, immigration
detention centers, minimum security detention centers and mental
health and residential treatment facilities. Our correctional
and detention management services involve the provision of
security, administrative, rehabilitation, education, health and
food services, primarily at adult male correctional and
detention facilities. Our mental health and residential
treatment services involve the delivery of quality care,
innovative programming and active patient treatment, primarily
at privatized state mental health. We also develop new
facilities based on contract awards, using our project
development expertise and experience to design, construct and
finance what we believe are state-of-the-art facilities that
maximize security and efficiency.
As of the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007, we managed
59 facilities totaling approximately 50,400 beds worldwide and
had an additional 6,800 beds under development at 10 facilities,
including the expansion of five facilities we currently operate
and five new facilities under construction. We also had
approximately 730 additional inactive beds available to meet our
customers potential future demand for bed space. For the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2007, we had consolidated
revenues of $1.02 billion and we maintained an average
companywide facility occupancy rate of 96.8%.
Recent
Developments
Acquisition
of CentraCore Properties Trust
On January 24, 2007, we completed the acquisition of CPT
pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
September 19, 2006, referred to as the Merger Agreement, by
and among us, GEO Acquisition II, Inc., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of GEO, and CPT. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, CPT merged with and into GEO Acquisition II, Inc.,
referred to as the Merger, with GEO Acquisition II, Inc., being
the surviving corporation of the Merger.
As a result of the Merger, each share of common stock of CPT was
converted into the right to receive $32.5826 in cash, inclusive
of a pro-rated dividend for all quarters or partial quarters for
which CPTs dividend had not yet been paid as of the
closing date. In addition, each outstanding option to purchase
CPT common stock having an exercise price less than $32.00 per
share was converted into the right to receive the difference
between $32.00 per share and the exercise price per share of the
option, multiplied by the total number of shares of CPT common
stock subject to the option. We paid an aggregate purchase price
of approximately $421.6 million for the acquisition of CPT,
inclusive of the payment of approximately $368.3 million in
exchange for the common stock and the options, the repayment of
approximately $40.0 million in CPT debt and the payment of
approximately $13.3 million in transaction related fees and
expenses. We financed the acquisition through the use of
$365.0 million in new borrowings under a new Term Loan B
and approximately $65.7 million in cash on hand. We
deferred debt issuance costs of $9.1 million related to the
new $365 million term loan. These costs are being amortized
over the life of the term loan. As a result of the acquisition
we no longer have ongoing lease expense related to the
properties we previously leased from CPT. However, we have had
an increase in depreciation expense reflecting our ownership of
the properties and also have higher interest expense as a result
of borrowings used to fund the acquisition. We expect any future
adjustments to goodwill as a result of tax elections to be
finalized in the first quarter of 2008. Such changes, if any,
may result in additional adjustments to goodwill.
Stock
Split
On May 1, 2007, our Board of Directors declared a
two-for-one stock split of our common stock. The stock split
took effect on June 1, 2007 with respect to stockholders of
record on May 15, 2007. Following the stock split, our
shares outstanding increased from 25.4 million to
50.8 million. All share and per share data included in this
annual report on
Form 10-K
have been adjusted to reflect the stock split.
Public
Offering
On March 23, 2007, we sold in a follow-on public equity
offering 5,462,500 shares of our common stock at a price of
$43.99 per share, (10,925,000 shares of our common stock at
a price of $22.00 per share
37
reflecting the two-for-one stock split). All shares were issued
from treasury. The aggregate net proceeds to us from the
offering (after deducting underwriters discounts and
expenses of $12.8 million) were $227.5 million. On
March 26, 2007, we utilized $200.0 million of the net
proceeds from the offering to repay outstanding debt under the
Term Loan B portion of the Senior Credit Facility. We used a
portion of the proceeds from the offering for general corporate
purposes, which included working capital, capital expenditures
and potential acquisitions of complementary businesses and other
assets.
Critical
Accounting Policies
We believe that the accounting policies described below are
critical to understanding our business, results of operations
and financial condition because they involve the more
significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of
our consolidated financial statements. We have discussed the
development, selection and application of our critical
accounting policies with the audit committee of our board of
directors, and our audit committee has reviewed our disclosure
relating to our critical accounting policies in this
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations.
Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States. As such, we are required to make certain estimates,
judgments and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based
upon the information available. These estimates and assumptions
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the
date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of
revenues and expenses during the reporting period. We routinely
evaluate our estimates based on historical experience and on
various other assumptions that our management believes are
reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ
from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
If actual results significantly differ from our estimates, our
financial condition and results of operations could be
materially impacted.
Other significant accounting policies, primarily those with
lower levels of uncertainty than those discussed below, are also
critical to understanding our consolidated financial statements.
The notes to our consolidated financial statements contain
additional information related to our accounting policies and
should be read in conjunction with this discussion.
Revenue
Recognition
We recognize revenue in accordance with Staff Accounting
Bulletin, or SAB, No. 101, Revenue Recognition in
Financial Statements, as amended by SAB No. 104,
Revenue Recognition, and related interpretations.
Facility management revenues are recognized as services are
provided under facility management contracts with approved
government appropriations based on a net rate per day per inmate
or on a fixed monthly rate. Certain of our contracts have
provisions upon which a portion of the revenue is based on our
performance of certain targets, as defined in the specific
contract. In these cases, we recognize revenue when the amounts
are fixed and determinable and the time period over which the
conditions have been satisfied has lapsed. In many instances, we
are a party to more than one contract with a single entity. In
these instances, each contract is accounted for separately.
Project development and design revenues are recognized as earned
on a percentage of completion basis measured by the percentage
of costs incurred to date as compared to estimated total cost
for each contract. This method is used because we consider costs
incurred to date to be the best available measure of progress on
these contracts. Provisions for estimated losses on uncompleted
contracts and changes to cost estimates are made in the period
in which we determine that such losses and changes are probable.
Typically, we enter into fixed price contracts and do not
perform additional work unless approved change orders are in
place. Costs attributable to unapproved change orders are
expensed in the period in which the costs are incurred if we
believe that it is not probable that the costs will be recovered
through a change in the contract price. If we believe that it is
probable that the costs will be recovered through a change in
the contract price, costs related to unapproved change orders
are expensed in the period in which they are incurred, and
contract revenue is recognized to the extent of the cost
incurred. Revenue in excess of the costs attributable to
unapproved change orders is not recognized until the change
order is approved. Contract costs include all direct material
and labor
38
costs and those indirect costs related to contract performance.
Changes in job performance, job conditions, and estimated
profitability, including those arising from contract penalty
provisions, and final contract settlements, may result in
revisions to estimated costs and income, and are recognized in
the period in which the revisions are determined. When
evaluating multiple element arrangements, we follow the
provisions of Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue
00-21,
Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables
(EITF 00-21).
EITF 00-21
provides guidance on determining if separate contracts should be
evaluated as a single arrangement and if an arrangement involves
a single unit of accounting or separate units of accounting and
if the arrangement is determined to have separate units, how to
allocate amounts received in the arrangement for revenue
recognition purposes.
In instances where we provide project development services and
subsequent management services, the amount of the consideration
from an arrangement is allocated to the delivered element based
on the residual method and the elements are recognized as
revenue when revenue recognition criteria for each element is
met. The fair value of the undelivered elements of an
arrangement is based on specific objective evidence.
We extend credit to the governmental agencies we contract with
and other parties in the normal course of business as a result
of billing and receiving payment for services thirty to sixty
days in arrears. Further, we regularly review outstanding
receivables, and provide estimated losses through an allowance
for doubtful accounts. In evaluating the level of established
loss reserves, we make judgments regarding our customers
ability to make required payments, economic events and other
factors. As the financial condition of these parties change,
circumstances develop or additional information becomes
available, adjustments to the allowance for doubtful accounts
may be required. We also perform ongoing credit evaluations of
our customers financial condition and generally do not
require collateral. We maintain reserves for potential credit
losses, and such losses traditionally have been within our
expectations.
Reserves
for Insurance Losses
The nature of our business exposes us to various types of
third-party legal claims, including, but not limited to, civil
rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with our
facilities, programs, personnel or prisoners, including damages
arising from a prisoners escape or from a disturbance or
riot at a facility. In addition, our management contracts
generally require us to indemnify the governmental agency
against any damages to which the governmental agency may be
subject in connection with such claims or litigation. We
maintain insurance coverage for these general types of claims,
except for claims relating to employment matters, for which we
carry no insurance.
We currently maintain a general liability policy for all
U.S. corrections operations with limits of
$62.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. On
October 1, 2004, we increased our deductible on this
general liability policy from $1.0 million to
$3.0 million for each claim occurring after October 1,
2004. GEO Care, Inc. is separately insured for general and
professional liability. Coverage is maintained with limits of
$10.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate subject
to a $3.0 million self-insured retention. We also maintain
insurance to cover property and casualty risks, workers
compensation, medical malpractice, environmental liability and
automobile liability. Our Australian subsidiary is required to
carry tail insurance on a general liability policy providing an
extended reporting period through 2011 related to a discontinued
contract. We also carry various types of insurance with respect
to our operations in South Africa, United Kingdom and Australia.
There can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be
adequate to cover all claims to which we may be exposed.
In addition, certain of our facilities located in Florida and
determined by insurers to be in high-risk hurricane areas carry
substantial windstorm deductibles. Since hurricanes are
considered unpredictable future events, no reserves have been
established to pre-fund for potential windstorm damage. Limited
commercial
39
availability of certain types of insurance relating to windstorm
exposure in coastal areas and earthquake exposure mainly in
California may prevent us from insuring our facilities to full
replacement value.
Since our insurance policies generally have high deductible
amounts, losses are recorded when reported and a further
provision is made to cover losses incurred but not reported.
Loss reserves are undiscounted and are computed based on
independent actuarial studies. Because we are significantly
self-insured, the amount of our insurance expense is dependent
on our claims experience and our ability to control our claims
experience. If actual losses related to insurance claims
significantly differ from our estimates, our financial condition
and results of operations could be materially impacted.
In April 2007, we incurred significant damages at one of our
managed-only facilities in New Castle, Indiana. The total amount
of impairments, losses recognized and expenses incurred has been
recorded in the accompanying consolidated statement of income as
operating expenses and is offset by $2.1 million of
insurance proceeds we received from our insurance carriers in
the first quarter of 2008.
Income
Taxes
We account for income taxes in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard No. 109, or FAS 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes, as clarified by FASB
Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes (FIN 48). Under this method,
deferred income taxes are determined based on the estimated
future tax effects of differences between the financial
statement and tax basis of assets and liabilities given the
provisions of enacted tax laws. Deferred income tax provisions
and benefits are based on changes to the assets or liabilities
from year to year. In providing for deferred taxes, we consider
tax regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate,
estimates of future taxable income, and available tax planning
strategies. If tax regulations, operating results or the ability
to implement tax-planning strategies vary, adjustments to the
carrying value of deferred tax assets and liabilities may be
required. Valuation allowances are recorded related to deferred
tax assets based on the more likely than not
criteria of FAS No. 109.
FIN 48 requires that we recognize the financial statement
benefit of a tax position only after determining that the
relevant tax authority would more likely than not sustain the
position following an audit. For tax positions meeting the
more-likely-than-not threshold, the amount
recognized in the financial statements is the largest benefit
that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being
realized upon ultimate settlement with the relevant tax
authority.
Property
and Equipment
As of December 30, 2007, we had approximately
$783.6 million in long-lived property and equipment.
Property and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated
depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line
method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets.
Buildings and improvements are depreciated over 2 to
40 years. Equipment and furniture and fixtures are
depreciated over 3 to 10 years. Accelerated methods of
depreciation are generally used for income tax purposes.
Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis
over the shorter of the useful life of the improvement or the
term of the lease. We perform ongoing evaluations of the
estimated useful lives of our property and equipment for
depreciation purposes. The estimated useful lives are determined
and continually evaluated based on the period over which
services are expected to be rendered by the asset. Maintenance
and repairs are expensed as incurred.
We review long-lived assets to be held and used for impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the
carrying amount of such assets may not be fully recoverable in
accordance with FAS 144 Accounting for the Impairment
of Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. Determination of
recoverability is based on an estimate of undiscounted future
cash flows resulting from the use of the asset and its eventual
disposition. Measurement of an impairment loss for long-lived
assets that management expects to hold and use is based on the
fair value of the asset. Long-lived assets to be disposed of are
reported at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less
costs to sell. Events that would trigger an impairment
assessment include deterioration of profits for a business
segment that has long-lived assets, or when other changes occur
which might impair recovery of long-lived assets. In July 2007,
we terminated our contract with Dickens County for the operation
of the Dickens County Correctional Center. As a result, we
wrote-off our intangible asset related to the facility of
$0.4 million (net of accumulated amortization of
$0.1 million). The impairment
40
charge is included in depreciation and amortization expense in
the accompanying consolidated statements of income for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2007. Management has
reviewed its long-lived assets and determined that there are no
other events requiring impairment loss recognition for the
period ended December 30, 2007.
Stock-Based
Compensation Expense
We account for stock-based compensation in accordance with the
provisions of FAS 123R. Under the fair value recognition
provisions of FAS 123R, stock-based compensation cost is
estimated at the grant date based on the fair value of the award
and is recognized as expense ratably over the requisite service
period of the award. Determining the appropriate fair value
model and calculating the fair value of the stock-based awards,
which includes estimates of stock price volatility, forfeiture
rates and expected lives, requires judgment that could
materially impact our operating results.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
See Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for a
description of certain other recent accounting pronouncements
including the expected dates of adoption and effects on our
results of operations and financial condition.
Contract
Terminations
On April 26, 2007, we announced that the Federal Bureau of
Prisons awarded a contract for the management of the 2,048-bed
Taft Correctional Institution, which we have managed since 1997,
to another private operator. The management contract, which was
competitively re-bid, was transitioned to the alternative
operator effective August 20, 2007. We do not expect the
loss of this contract to have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition or results of operations.
In July 2007, we cancelled the Operations and Management
contract with Dickens County for the management of the 489-bed
facility located in Spur, Texas. The cancellation became
effective on December 28, 2007. We have operated the
management contract since the acquisition of CSC in November
2005. We do not expect the termination of this contract to have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results
of operations.
On October 2, 2007, we received notice of the termination
of our contract with the Texas Youth Commission for the housing
of juvenile inmates at the 200-bed Coke County Juvenile Justice
Center located in Bronte, Texas. We are in the preliminary
stages of reviewing the termination of this contract. However,
we do not expect the termination, or any liability that may
arise with respect to such termination, to have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition or results of
operations.
Results
of Operations
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our
consolidated financial statements and the notes to the
consolidated financial statements accompanying this report. This
discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve
risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ
materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking
statements as a result of certain factors, including, but not
limited to, those described under Item 1A. Risk
Factors and those included in other portions of this
report.
The discussion of our results of operations below excludes the
results of our discontinued operations for all periods presented.
For the purposes of the discussion below, 2007 means
the 52 week fiscal year ended December 30, 2007,
2006 means the 52 week fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006, and 2005 means the
52 week fiscal year ended January 1, 2006.
41
Overview
2007
versus 2006
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. corrections
|
|
$
|
671,957
|
|
|
|
65.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
612,810
|
|
|
|
71.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
59,147
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
%
|
International services
|
|
|
130,317
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
%
|
|
|
103,553
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
%
|
|
|
26,764
|
|
|
|
25.8
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
113,754
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
|
|
70,379
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
|
|
43,375
|
|
|
|
61.6
|
%
|
Facility construction and design
|
|
|
108,804
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
|
|
74,140
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
34,664
|
|
|
|
46.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,024,832
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
860,882
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
163,950
|
|
|
|
19.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
corrections
The increase in revenues for U.S. corrections in 2007
compared to 2006 is primarily attributable to six items:
(i) revenues increased $21.3 million in 2007 due to
the completion of the Central Arizona Correctional Facility at
the end of 2006 in Florence, Arizona; (ii) revenues
increased $16.9 million in 2007 as a result of the capacity
increase in September 2006 in our Lawton Correctional Facility
located at Lawton, Oklahoma; (iii) revenues increased $5.3
and $5.0 million in 2007, respectively, as a result of the
capacity increases in August 2006 in our South Texas Detention
Complex and in December 2006 in our Northwest Detention Center,
located at Tacoma, Washington; (iv) revenues increased
$6.6 million due to the commencement of our contract with
the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) located
in New Castle, Indiana in March 2007; (v) revenues
increased by $5.4 million due to the opening of our
Graceville facility in September 2007; and (vi) revenues
increased due to contractual adjustments for inflation, and
improved terms negotiated into a number of contracts.
The number of compensated mandays in U.S. corrections
facilities increased to 14.6 million in 2007 from
13.4 million in 2006 due to the addition of new facilities
and capacity increases. We look at the average occupancy in our
facilities to determine how we are managing our available beds.
The average occupancy is calculated by taking compensated
mandays as a percentage of capacity. The average occupancy in
our U.S. correction and detention facilities was 96.5% of
capacity in 2007 compared to 96.0% in 2006, excluding our vacant
Northlake Correctional Facility in Baldwin, Michigan, referred
to as the Michigan facility in 2007 and 2006 and our
vacant Jena facility in 2006 (reactivated June 2007).
International
services
The increase in revenues for International services facilities
in 2007 compared to 2006 was primarily due to the following
items: (i) South African revenues increased by
approximately $1.3 million due to a contractual adjustment
for inflation; (ii) Australian revenues increased
approximately $15.0 million due to favorable fluctuations
in foreign currency exchange rates during the period,
contractual adjustments for inflation and improved terms and an
increase of 50 beds at the Junee Correctional Centre; and
(iii) United Kingdom revenues increased approximately
$10.4 million primarily due to the operations at Campsfield
House which began in the second quarter of 2006, a construction
project which began in the Fourth Quarter 2006, the acquisition
by our U.K. subsidiary of Recruitment Solutions International
also occurring in the Fourth Quarter 2006, and favorable
fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.
The number of compensated mandays in International services
facilities remained constant at 2.0 million 2007 and 2006.
We look at the average occupancy in our facilities to determine
how we are managing our available beds. The average occupancy is
calculated by taking compensated mandays as a percentage of
capacity. The average occupancy in our International services
facilities was 98.2% of capacity in 2007 compared to 98.1% in
2006.
42
GEO
Care
The increase in revenues for GEO Care in 2007 compared to 2006
is primarily attributable to three items: (i) the Florida
Civil Commitment Center in Arcadia, Florida, which commenced in
July 2006 and increased revenues by $14.2 million;
(ii) the Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center in Martin
County, Florida, which commenced operations in First Quarter
2007 and increased revenues by $14.7 million and
(iii) the South Florida Evaluation and Treatment
Center Annex in Miami, Florida which commenced
operation in January 2007 and increased revenues by
$9.9 million.
Facility
Construction and Design
The increase in revenues from construction activities is
primarily attributable to four items: (i) the renovation of
Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center located in Martin
County, Florida, in March, 2007 increased revenues by
$2.3 million; (ii) the construction of the Clayton
Correctional facility located in Clayton County, New Mexico,
which commenced construction in September 2006 and increased
revenues by $36.9 million; (iii) the construction of
the Florida Civil Commitment Center in Arcadia, Florida
increased revenues by $15.7 million and (iv) the
construction of the new South Florida Evaluation and Treatment
Center in Miami, Florida, which commenced construction in
November 2005 and increased revenues by $20.2 million,
offset by decreases in construction revenue for the Graceville
Correctional Facility in Graceville, Florida which commenced
construction in February 2006 and for which construction was
complete in September 2007 and also decreases related to the
Moore Haven Correctional Facility in Moore Haven, Florida which
commenced construction in February 2006 and was completed in May
2007. These two facilities represented $32.0 million and
$10.0 million, respectively, of the decrease.
Operating
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. corrections
|
|
$
|
501,199
|
|
|
|
74.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
485,583
|
|
|
|
79.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
15,616
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
%
|
International services
|
|
|
119,021
|
|
|
|
91.3
|
%
|
|
|
94,068
|
|
|
|
90.8
|
%
|
|
|
24,953
|
|
|
|
26.5
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
101,344
|
|
|
|
89.1
|
%
|
|
|
63,799
|
|
|
|
90.7
|
%
|
|
|
37,545
|
|
|
|
58.8
|
%
|
Facility construction and design
|
|
|
109,070
|
|
|
|
100.2
|
%
|
|
|
74,728
|
|
|
|
100.8
|
%
|
|
|
34,342
|
|
|
|
46.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
830,634
|
|
|
|
81.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
718,178
|
|
|
|
83.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
112,456
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the
operation and management of our correctional, detention and GEO
Care facilities. Expenses also include construction costs which
are included in Facility construction and design.
U.S.
corrections
The increase in U.S. corrections operating expenses
reflects the new openings and expansions discussed above as well
as general increases in labor costs and utilities. Operating
expenses as a percentage of revenues decreased in 2007 compared
to 2006 which is partially a reflection of higher margins at
certain new facilities. Fiscal year 2007 operating expense was
reduced $29.3 million as a result of the CPT acquisition
and subsequent elimination of our leases and the related
expense. Also reflected in 2007 operating expenses are the
proceeds from the insurance settlement of $2.1 million
related to the damages in New Castle, Indiana and recognized as
an offset to those related expenditures. Operating expenses in
2007 were favorably impacted by a $0.9 million overall
reduction in our reserves for general liability, auto liability,
and workers compensation insurance compared to a
$4.0 million reduction in 2006. These reductions in
insurance reserves primarily resulted from our continued
improved claims experience. Our savings in the fiscal years
ended 2007 and 2006 were the result of revised actuarial
projections related to loss estimates for the initial five and
four years, respectively, of our insurance program which was
established on October 2, 2002. Prior to October 2,
2002, our insurance coverage was provided through an insurance
program established by TWC, our former parent company. We
experienced significant adverse claims development in general
liability and workers
43
compensation in the late 1990s. Beginning in approximately
1999, we made significant operational changes and began to
aggressively manage our risk in a proactive manner. These
changes have resulted in improved claims experience and loss
development, which we are realizing in our actuarial
projections. As a result of improving loss trends, our
independent actuary reduced its expected losses for claims
arising since October 2, 2002. We adjusted our reserve at
October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2006 to reflect the
actuarys expected loss. We expect future actuarial
projections will result in smaller annual adjustments as our
improved claims experience represents a more significant
component of the historical losses used by our actuary in
calculating annual loss projections and related reserve
requirements.
International
services
Operating expenses for International services facilities
increased in 2007 compared to 2006 largely as a result of the
June 2006 commencement of the Campsfield House contract in the
United Kingdom. The operating expenses in the United Kingdom
increased by $10.7 million in the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2007 as a result of increases in operations at
the Campsfield House which began in the second quarter of 2006.
Australian operating expenses also increased by
$13.1 million due to fluctuations in foreign currency
exchange rates during the period as well as additional staffing
and expenses related to contract variations. Margins in
Australia were consistent with margins for the same period in
2006 while margins in South Africa improved due to certain
non-recurring costs incurred in the comparable period of the
prior year.
GEO
Care
Operating expenses for residential treatment increased
approximately $37.5 million during 2007 from 2006 primarily
due to the new contracts discussed above. Operating expenses as
a percentage of segment revenues in 2007 increased in 2007 due
to certain expenditures required for newly opened facilities
such as employee training costs and professional fees.
Facility
Construction and Design
Expenses for construction and design increased
$34.3 million during 2007 compared to 2006 primarily due to
the four construction contracts discussed above.
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. corrections
|
|
$
|
31,039
|
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
20,848
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
10,191
|
|
|
|
48.9
|
%
|
International services
|
|
|
1,359
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
803
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
556
|
|
|
|
69.2
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
1,472
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
584
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
888
|
|
|
|
152.1
|
%
|
Facility construction and design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
33,870
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
22,235
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
11,635
|
|
|
|
52.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
and Amortization
The increase in depreciation is attributable to the
U.S. corrections segment and is primarily a result of the
purchase of CPT in January 2007. Also included in depreciation
for the U.S. corrections segment is our write-off of
$0.4 million for the intangible asset related to our
cancellation of the management contract to operate our former
489-bed Dickens County Correctional Center in July 2007.
44
Other
Unallocated Operating Expenses
General
and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2006
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
$
|
64,492
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
56,268
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
8,224
|
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of
corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees
and other administrative expenses. The increase in general and
administrative costs is mainly due to increases in direct labor
costs and increases in rent expense as a result of increased
administrative staff and additional leased space.
Non
Operating Expenses
Interest
Income and Interest Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2006
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
$
|
8,746
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
10,687
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
(1,941
|
)
|
|
|
(18.2
|
)%
|
Interest Expense
|
|
$
|
36,051
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
28,231
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
7,820
|
|
|
|
27.7
|
%
|
The decrease in interest income is primarily due to lower
average invested cash balances.
The increase in interest expense is primarily attributable to
the increase in our debt during the period as a result of the
CPT acquisition.
Interest is capitalized in connection with the construction of
correctional and detention facilities. Capitalized interest is
recorded as part of the asset to which it relates and is
amortized over the assets estimated useful life. During
fiscal years ended 2007 and 2006, the Company capitalized
$1.2 million and $0.2 million of interest cost,
respectively.
Provision
for Income Taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Effective Rate
|
|
2006
|
|
Effective Rate
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Income Tax Provision
|
|
$
|
24,226
|
|
|
|
38.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
16,505
|
|
|
|
36.4
|
%
|
Income taxes for 2007 and 2006 include certain one time items of
$0.4 million and $0.7 million, respectively. Without
such items, our effective tax rate would have been 38.6% and
38%, respectively.
Minority
Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2006
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Minority Interest
|
|
$
|
(397
|
)
|
|
|
(0.0
|
)%
|
|
$
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
(0.0
|
)%
|
|
$
|
(272
|
)
|
|
|
217.6
|
%
|
Increase in minority interest reflects increased performance in
2007 due to contractual increases. During 2006, our joint
venture experienced lower revenues during the first and second
quarter of 2006 related to facility modifications which resulted
in reduced capacity and related billings.
Equity in
Earnings of Affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2006
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliate
|
|
$
|
2,151
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
575
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
%
|
45
Equity in earnings of affiliates in 2007 and 2006 reflects the
normal operations of South African Custodial Services Pty.
Limited (SACS). In 2007, the facility was operating
at full capacity compared to the prior year average capacity of
97%. We also experienced contractual increases as well as
favorable foreign currency translation.
In February 2007, the South African legislature passed
legislation that has the effect of removing the exemption from
taxation on government revenues. As a result of the new
legislation, SACS will be subject to South African taxation
going forward at the applicable tax rate of 29%. The increase in
the applicable income tax rate results in an increase in net
deferred tax liabilities which were calculated at a rate of 0%
during the period the government revenues were exempt. The
effect of the increase in the deferred tax liability of the
equity affiliate is a charge to equity in earnings of affiliate
in the amount of $2.4 million. The law change also has the
effect of reducing a previously recorded liability for
unrecognized tax benefits as provided under FIN 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, resulting in an
increase to equity in earnings of affiliate. The respective
decrease and increase to equity in earnings of affiliate are
substantially offsetting in nature.
2006
versus 2005
Revenues
and Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. corrections
|
|
$
|
612,810
|
|
|
|
71.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
473,280
|
|
|
|
77.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
139,530
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
%
|
International services
|
|
|
103,553
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
%
|
|
|
98,829
|
|
|
|
16.1
|
%
|
|
|
4,724
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
70,379
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
|
|
32,616
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
%
|
|
|
37,763
|
|
|
|
115.8
|
%
|
Facility construction and design
|
|
|
74,140
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
8,175
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
65,965
|
|
|
|
806.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
860,882
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
612,900
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
247,982
|
|
|
|
40.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
corrections
The increase in revenues for U.S. corrections facilities in
2006 compared to 2005 is primarily attributable to five items:
(i) revenues increased $104.5 million as a result of
the acquisition of Correctional Services Corporation, referred
to as CSC, in November 2005; (ii) revenues increased
$12.1 million in 2006 as a result of the New Castle
Correctional Facility in New Castle, Indiana, which we began
managing in January 2006; (iii) revenues increased
approximately $12.6 million in 2006 as a result of improved
contractual terms at the Western Region Detention
Facility San Diego facility; (iv) revenues
decreased approximately $13.8 million in 2006 as a result
of the Northlake Correctional Facility (Michigan) contract
termination in October 2005; and (v) revenues increased due
to contractual adjustments for inflation, and improved terms
negotiated into a number of contracts.
The number of compensated resident days in U.S. corrections
facilities increased to 13.4 million in 2006 from
10.7 million in 2005 due to the additional capacity of the
acquired CSC facilities of 2.0 million. We look at the
average occupancy in our facilities to determine how we are
managing our available beds. The average occupancy is calculated
by taking compensated mandays as a percentage of capacity. The
average occupancy in our U.S. corrections facilities was
96.0% of capacity in 2006 compared to 95.7% in 2005, excluding
our vacant Michigan and Jena facilities.
International
services
Revenues for International services facilities remained
consistent in 2006 compared to 2005. Revenues increased by
$4.7 million as a result of the June 2006 commencement of
the Campsfield House contract in the United Kingdom. However,
this increase was offset by the weakening of the Australian
dollar and South African Rand, which resulted in a decrease of
$1.0 million and $0.8 million, respectively, while
lower
46
occupancy rates in Australia and South Africa accounted for a
decrease in $0.2 million and $0.5 million,
respectively for 2006.
The number of compensated resident days in International
services facilities remained consistent at 2.0 million
during 2006 and 2005. We look at the average occupancy in our
facilities to determine how we are managing our available beds.
The average occupancy is calculated by taking compensated
mandays as a percentage of capacity. The average occupancy in
our International service facilities was 98.1% of capacity in
2006 compared to 99.6% in 2005.
GEO
Care
The increase in revenues for GEO Care in 2006 compared to 2005
is primarily attributable to four new contracts which commenced
operation in 2006. In January 2006, the South Florida
Evaluation & Treatment Center in Miami, Florida and
the Fort Bayard Medical Center in Fort Bayard, New
Mexico commenced operations, increasing revenues by
$23.9 million and $3.3 million, respectively. The Palm
Beach County Jail in Palm Beach County, Florida commenced
operations in May 2006 and increased revenues by
$1.7 million. In July 2006, we commenced operations of the
Florida Civil Commitment Center in Arcadia, Florida, which
contributed revenues of $8.3 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. corrections
|
|
$
|
485,583
|
|
|
|
79.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
415,978
|
|
|
|
87.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
69,605
|
|
|
|
16.7
|
%
|
International services
|
|
|
94,068
|
|
|
|
90.8
|
%
|
|
|
85,634
|
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
|
8,434
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
63,799
|
|
|
|
90.7
|
%
|
|
|
30,203
|
|
|
|
92.6
|
%
|
|
|
33,596
|
|
|
|
111.2
|
%
|
Facility construction and Design
|
|
|
74,728
|
|
|
|
100.8
|
%
|
|
|
8,313
|
|
|
|
101.7
|
%
|
|
|
66,415
|
|
|
|
798.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
718,178
|
|
|
|
83.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
540,128
|
|
|
|
88.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
178,050
|
|
|
|
33.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the
operation and management of our correctional, detention and GEO
Care facilities. Expenses also include construction costs which
are included in Facility construction and design.
U.S.
corrections
The increase in U.S. corrections operating expenses
primarily reflects the acquisition of CSC (which increased
operating expenses by $71.1 million in fiscal 2006), the
New Castle Correctional Facility, opened in January 2006, as
well as general increases in labor costs and utilities.
Operating expenses as a percentage of revenues decreased in 2006
compared to 2005 primarily as a result of $20.9 million
impairment charge related to the Michigan facility and a
$4.3 million charge related to the Jena lease.
Operating expenses in 2006 were favorably impacted by a
$4.0 million reduction in our reserves for general
liability, auto liability, and workers compensation insurance.
The $4.0 million reduction in insurance reserves related to
general liability, auto and workers compensation was the result
of revised actuarial projections related to loss estimates for
the initial four years of our insurance program which was
established on October 2, 2002. Prior to October 2,
2002, our insurance coverage was provided through an insurance
program established by TWC, our former parent company. We
experienced significant adverse claims development in general
liability and workers compensation in the late
1990s. Beginning in approximately 1999, we made
significant operational changes and began to aggressively manage
our risk in a proactive manner. These changes have resulted in
improved claims experience and loss development, which we are
realizing in our actuarial projections. As a result of improving
loss trends, our independent actuary reduced its expected losses
for claims arising since October 2, 2002. We adjusted our
reserve at October 1, 2006 and October 2, 2005 to
reflect the actuarys expected loss. In addition, 2005
operating expenses were favorably impacted by a
$3.4 million reduction in our reserves for general
liability, auto liability, and workers compensation
insurance. Fiscal year 2005 operating expense reflect an
additional operating charge on the Jena
47
lease of $4.3 million, representing the remaining
obligation on the lease through the contractual term of January
2010. Fiscal year 2005 operating expenses were also effected by
higher than anticipated employee health insurance costs of
approximately $1.7 million as well as
start-up
expenses of approximately $0.8 million associated with
transitioning customers at our Queens, New York Facility.
International
services
Operating expenses for International services facilities
increased in 2006 compared to 2005 largely as a result of the
June 2006 commencement of the Campsfield House contract in the
United Kingdom. Australian operating expenses decreased slightly
during 2006 due to a 2005 insurance reserve adjustment which
increased expenses by approximately $0.4 million in 2005.
South African operating expenses remained consistent overall for
2006 and 2005.
International services segment operating expenses were impacted
by reductions in the reserves related to the contract with DIMIA
that was discontinued in February 2004. The company has exposure
to general liability claims under the previous contract for
seven years following the discontinuation of the contract. The
Company reduced its reserves for this exposure $0.5 million
and $0.9 million in the second quarter 2006 and second
quarter 2005, respectively. The remaining reserve balance at
December 31, 2006 is approximately $1.2 million and
approximately 4 years remain until the tail period expires.
GEO
Care
Operating expenses for GEO Care increased approximately
$33.6 million during 2006 from 2005 primarily due to the
activation of the new contracts discussed above.
Facility
construction and design
There was an increase in revenue in our construction business of
approximately $66.0 million in 2006 as compared to 2005.
The construction revenue is related to our expansion of the
Moore Haven Facility, which we currently manage, and the new
construction of the Graceville Facility, which we completed in
the third quarter of 2007. Furthermore, operating expenses
relating to the construction of both the Graceville Facility and
Moore Haven Facility were approximately $50.4 and
$11.9 million, respectively. Offsetting this increase was
the completion of the expansion of South Bay at the end of the
third quarter of 2005, which represented $7.1 million of
construction revenue in 2005.
Other
Unallocated Operating Expenses
General
and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2005
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
$
|
56,268
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
48,958
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
7,310
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
%
|
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of
corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees
and other administrative expenses. General and administrative
expenses increased by $7.3 million in 2006 compared to
2005, however decreased slightly as a percentage of revenues due
to the overall increase in revenue during 2006. The increase in
general and administrative costs is mainly due to increases in
direct labor costs and related taxes of approximately
$4.8 million as a result of increased headcount of
administrative staff and higher estimated annual bonus payments
under our incentive compensation plans due to an increase in
earnings. Amortization of deferred compensation and expense
related to stock options increased general and administrative
expenses $1.4 million. Administrative costs as well as
general increases in travel expense increased approximately
$1.7 million.
48
Non
Operating Expenses
Interest
Income and Interest Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2005
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
$
|
10,687
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
9,154
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,533
|
|
|
|
16.7
|
%
|
Interest Expense
|
|
$
|
28,231
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
23,016
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
5,215
|
|
|
|
22.7
|
%
|
The increase in interest income is primarily due to higher
average invested cash balances.
The increase in interest expense is primarily attributable to
the increase in our debt as a result of the CSC acquisition, as
well as the increase in LIBOR rates.
Provision
for Income Taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Effective Rate
|
|
2005
|
|
Effective Rate
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Income Tax Provision (Benefit)
|
|
$
|
16,505
|
|
|
|
36.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
(11,826
|
)
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Income taxes for 2006 include certain one time items of
$0.7 million resulting in an effective tax rate of 36.4%.
Without such items the rate would have been approximately 38%.
Income taxes for 2005 reflect a benefit as a result of the loss
before income taxes which primarily resulted from the
$20.9 million impairment charge for the Michigan Facility
and the $4.3 million charge to record the remaining lease
obligation for our former lease with CPT relating to the Jena
facility. The income tax benefit for 2005 reflects a benefit of
$6.5 million in the fourth quarter 2005 related to a step
up in tax basis for an asset in Australia which resulted in a
decreased deferred tax liability. The income tax benefit for
2005 also reflects a benefit of $1.7 million in the second
quarter 2005 related to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004,
or the AJCA. A key provision of the AJCA creates a temporary
incentive for U.S. corporations to repatriate undistributed
income earned abroad by providing an 85 percent dividends
received deduction for certain dividends from controlled foreign
corporations.
Minority
Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2005
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Minority Interest
|
|
$
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
(0.0
|
)%
|
|
$
|
(742
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
$
|
617
|
|
|
|
(83.2
|
)%
|
Decrease in minority interest reflects reduced performance
during 2006 as a result of lower revenues during the first and
second quarter of 2006 related to facility modifications which
resulted in reduced capacity and related billings.
Equity in
Earnings of Affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2005
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliate
|
|
$
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,079
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
(503
|
)
|
|
|
(24.2
|
)%
|
Equity in earnings of affiliates in 2006 reflects the normal
operations of South African Custodial Services Pty. Limited
(SACS).
Equity in earnings of affiliate in 2005 reflects a one time tax
benefit of $2.1 million related to a change in South
African tax law.
In 2005, our equity affiliate, SACS, recognized a one time tax
benefit of $2.1 million related to a change in South
African Tax law applicable to companies in a qualified Public
Private Partnership (PPP) with the South African
Government. The tax law change has the effect that beginning in
2005 government revenues earned under the PPP are exempt from
South African taxation. The one time tax benefit in part related
to
49
deferred tax liabilities that were eliminated during 2005 as a
result of the change in the tax law. In February 2007, the South
African legislature passed legislation that has the effect of
removing the exemption from taxation on government revenue. The
law change began to impact the equity in earnings of affiliate
beginning in 2007.
Financial
Condition
Capital
Requirements
Our current cash requirements consist of amounts needed for
working capital, debt service, supply purchases, investments in
joint ventures, and capital expenditures related to the
development of new correctional, detention
and/or
mental health facilities. In addition, some of our management
contracts require us to make substantial initial expenditures of
cash in connection with opening or renovating a facility.
Generally, these initial expenditures are subsequently fully or
partially recoverable as pass-through costs or are billable as a
component of the per diem rates or monthly fixed fees to the
contracting agency over the original term of the contract.
Additional capital needs may also arise in the future with
respect to possible acquisitions, other corporate transactions
or other corporate purposes.
We are currently developing a number of projects using company
financing. We estimate that these existing capital projects will
cost approximately $249.4 million through the end of 2009,
of which $102.1 million was complete at fiscal year end
2007. We estimate our capital requirements for 2008 to be
approximately $93.8 million, of which we estimate
$44 million of expenditures in the first quarter,
$21.8 million in the second quarter, $14 million in
the third quarter and $14 million in the fourth quarter.
These capital expenditures are related to the following
projects: (i) our renovation and expansion of the 576-bed
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility in Clayton County, GA for
approximately $18.5 million, which was completed in the
first quarter 2008; (ii) our funding of the expansion of
Delaney Hall, a facility which we own as a result of the CPT
acquisition but do not operate, for approximately
$13.0 million, which is expected to be complete in the
first quarter of 2008; (iii) our construction of the
1500-bed Rio Grande Detention Center for approximately
$85.9 million which is expected to be complete in the third
quarter of 2008; (iv) our 744-bed expansion of the 416-bed
LaSalle Detention Facility for approximately $32.4 million
which is also expected to be complete in the third quarter of
2008; and (v) our construction of the 1,100-bed expansion
at the Aurora Processing Center in Aurora, Colorado for
approximately $68.8 million, which is expected to be
complete in 2009. Capital expenditures related to facility
maintenance costs are expected to range between
$10.0 million and $15.0 million. In addition to these
current estimated capital requirements for 2008 and 2009, we are
currently in the process of bidding on, or evaluating potential
bids for, the design, construction and management of a number of
new projects. In the event that we win bids for these projects
and decide to self-finance their construction, our capital
requirements in 2008
and/or 2009
could materially increase.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
We plan to fund all of our capital needs, including our capital
expenditures, from cash on hand, cash from operations,
borrowings under our Senior Credit Facility and any other
financings which our management and board of directors, in their
discretion, may consummate. Our primary source of liquidity to
meet these requirements is cash flow from operations and
borrowings from the $150.0 million Revolver under our Third
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement referred to as our Senior
Credit Facility (see discussion below). As of December 30,
2007, we had $86.5 million available for borrowing under
the revolving portion of the Senior Credit Facility.
We incurred substantial indebtedness in connection with the
acquisition CPT in January 2007, CSC in November 2005 and the
share purchase in 2003. As of December 30, 2007, we had
$309.3 million of consolidated debt outstanding, excluding
$138.0 million of non-recourse debt and capital lease
liability balances of $16.6 million. As of
December 30, 2007, we also had outstanding six letters of
guarantee totaling approximately $6.4 million under
separate international credit facilities. Based on our debt
covenants and the amount of indebtedness we have outstanding, we
currently have the ability to borrow an additional
50
approximately $86.5 million under our Senior Credit
Facility. Our significant debt service obligations could have
material consequences. See Risk Factors Risks
Related to Our High Level of Indebtedness.
Our management believes that cash on hand, cash flows from
operations and borrowings under our Senior Credit Facility will
be adequate to support our capital requirements for 2008 and
2009 disclosed above. However, we are currently in the process
of bidding on, or evaluating potential bids for, the design,
construction and management of a number of new projects. In the
event that we win bids for these projects and decide to
self-finance their construction, our capital requirements in
2008 and/or
2009 could materially increase. In that event, our cash on hand,
cash flows from operations and borrowings under the Senior
Credit Facility may not provide sufficient liquidity to meet our
capital needs through 2008 and 2009 and we could be forced to
seek additional financing or refinance our existing
indebtedness. There can be no assurance that any such financing
or refinancing would be available to us on terms equal to or
more favorable than our current financing terms, or at all.
In the future, our access to capital and ability to compete for
future capital-intensive projects will also be dependent upon,
among other things, our ability to meet certain financial
covenants in the indenture governing the
81/4% Senior
Unsecured Notes (the Notes) and in our Senior Credit
Facility. A substantial decline in our financial performance
could limit our access to capital pursuant to these covenants
and have a material adverse affect on our liquidity and capital
resources and, as a result, on our financial condition and
results of operations.
We have entered into individual executive retirement agreements
with our CEO and Chairman, President and Vice Chairman, and
Chief Financial Officer. These agreements provide each executive
with a lump sum payment upon retirement. Under the agreements,
each executive may retire at any time after reaching the age of
55. Each of the executives reached the eligible retirement age
of 55 in 2005. None of the executives have indicated their
intent to retire as of this time. However, under the retirement
agreements, retirement may be taken at any time at the
individual executives discretion. In the event that all
three executives were to retire in the same year, we believe we
will have funds available to pay the retirement obligations from
various sources, including cash on hand, operating cash flows or
borrowings under our revolving credit facility. Based on our
current capitalization, we do not believe that making these
payments in any one period, whether in separate installments or
in the aggregate, would materially adversely impact our
liquidity.
We are also exposed to various commitments and contingencies
which may have a material adverse effect on our liquidity. See
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
The
Senior Credit Facility
On January 24, 2007, we completed the refinancing of our
Senior Credit Facility through the execution of the Senior
Credit Facility, by and among GEO, as Borrower, BNP Paribas, as
Administrative Agent, BNP Paribas Securities Corp, as Lead
Arranger and Syndication Agent, and the lenders who are, or may
from time to time become, a party thereto. The Senior Credit
Facility consists of a $365.0 million
7-year term
loan referred to as the Term Loan B and a $150.0 million
5-year
revolver, expiring September 14, 2010, referred to as the
Revolver. The initial interest rate for the Term Loan B is LIBOR
plus 1.5% and the Revolver bears interest at LIBOR plus 1.50%
(our weighted average rate on outstanding borrowings under the
Term Loan portion of the facility as of December 30, 2007
was 6.38%) or at the base rate (prime rate) plus 0.5%. Also on
January 24, 2007, we used the $365.0 million in
borrowings under the Term Loan B as financing for the
acquisition of CPT. During Second Quarter 2007, we used
$200.0 million of the net proceeds from the follow on
equity offering to repay a portion of the debt outstanding under
the Term Loan B. GEO has no current borrowings under the
Revolver and intends to use future borrowings thereunder for the
purposes permitted under the Senior Credit Facility, including
to fund general corporate purposes.
All of the obligations under the Senior Credit Facility are
unconditionally guaranteed by each of GEOs existing
material domestic subsidiaries. The Senior Credit Facility and
the related guarantees are secured by substantially all of
GEOs present and future tangible and intangible assets and
all present and future tangible and intangible assets of each
guarantor, including but not limited to (i) a
first-priority pledge of all of the outstanding capital stock
owned by GEO and each guarantor, and (ii) perfected
first-priority security interests
51
in all of GEOs present and future tangible and intangible
assets and the present and future tangible and intangible assets
of each guarantor.
Indebtedness under the Revolver bears interest in each of the
instances below at the stated rate:
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate under the Revolver
|
|
LIBOR Borrowings
|
|
LIBOR plus 1.50% to 2.50%.
|
Base rate borrowings
|
|
Prime rate plus 0.5% to 1.50%.
|
Letters of Credit
|
|
1.50% to 2.50%.
|
Available Borrowings
|
|
0.38% to 0.5%.
|
The Senior Credit Facility contains financial covenants which
require us to maintain the following ratios, as computed at the
end of each fiscal quarter for the immediately preceding four
quarter-period:
|
|
|
Period
|
|
Leverage Ratio
|
|
Through December 30, 2008
|
|
Total leverage ratio ≤5.50 to 1.00
|
From December 31, 2008 through December 31, 2011
|
|
Reduces from 4.75 to 1.00, to 3.00 to 1.00
|
Through December 30, 2008
|
|
Senior secured leverage ratio ≤ 4.00 to 1.00
|
From December 31, 2008 through December 31, 2011
|
|
Reduces from 3.25 to 1.00, to 2.00 to 1.00
|
Four quarters ending June 29, 2008, to December 30,
2009
|
|
Fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.00, thereafter increases to
1.10 to 1.00
|
In addition, the Senior Credit Facility prohibits us from making
capital expenditures greater than $55.0 million in the
aggregate during fiscal year 2007 and $25.0 million during
each of the fiscal years thereafter, provided that to the extent
that our capital expenditures during any fiscal year are less
than the limit, such amount will be added to the maximum amount
of capital expenditures that we can make in the following year.
In addition, certain capital expenditures, including those made
with the proceeds of any future equity offerings, are not
subject to numerical limitations.
All of the obligations under the Senior Credit Facility are
unconditionally guaranteed by each of our existing material
domestic subsidiaries. The Senior Credit Facility and the
related guarantees are secured by substantially all of our
present and future tangible and intangible assets and all
present and future tangible and intangible assets of each
guarantor, including but not limited to (i) a
first-priority pledge of all of the outstanding capital stock
owned by us and each guarantor, and (ii) perfected
first-priority security interests in all of our present and
future tangible and intangible assets and the present and future
tangible and intangible assets of each guarantor.
The Senior Credit Facility contains certain customary
representations and warranties, and certain customary covenants
that restrict GEOs ability to, among other things
(i) create, incur or assume any indebtedness,
(ii) incur liens, (iii) make loans and investments,
(iv) engage in mergers, acquisitions and asset sales,
(v) sell its assets, (vi) make certain restricted
payments, including declaring any cash dividends or redeem or
repurchase capital stock, except as otherwise permitted,
(vii) issue, sell or otherwise dispose of capital stock,
(viii) transact with affiliates, (ix) make changes in
accounting treatment, (x) amend or modify the terms of any
subordinated indebtedness, (xi) enter into debt agreements
that contain negative pledges on its assets or covenants more
restrictive than contained in the Senior Credit Facility,
(xii) alter the business GEO conducts, and
(xiii) materially impair GEOs lenders security
interests in the collateral for its loans.
Events of default under the Senior Credit Facility include, but
are not limited to, (i) GEOs failure to pay principal
or interest when due, (ii) GEOs material breach of
any representations or warranty, (iii) covenant defaults,
(iv) bankruptcy, (v) cross default to certain other
indebtedness, (vi) unsatisfied final judgments over a
specified threshold, (vii) material environmental claims
which are asserted against GEO, and (viii) a change of
control.
52
The covenants governing our Senior Credit Facility, including
the covenants described above, impose significant operating and
financial restrictions which may substantially restrict, and
materially adversely affect, our ability to operate our business.
See Risk Factors Risks Related to Our High
Level of Indebtedness The covenants in the indenture
governing the Notes and our Senior Credit Facility impose
significant operating and financial restrictions which may
adversely affect our ability to operate our business. We
believe we were in compliance with all of the covenants in the
Senior Credit Facility as of December 30, 2007.
Senior
81/4% Notes
In July 2003, to facilitate the completion of the purchase of
12.0 million shares from Group 4 Falck, our former majority
shareholder, we issued $150.0 million aggregate principal
amount, ten-year,
81/4% senior
unsecured notes, which we refer to as the Notes. The Notes are
general, unsecured, senior obligations of ours. Interest is
payable semi-annually on January 15 and July 15 at
81/4%.
The Notes are governed by the terms of an Indenture, dated
July 9, 2003, between us and the Bank of New York, as
trustee, referred to as the Indenture. Additionally, after
July 15, 2008, we may redeem, at our option, all or a
portion of the Notes plus accrued and unpaid interest at various
redemption prices ranging from 104.125% to 100.000% of the
principal amount to be redeemed, depending on when the
redemption occurs. The Indenture contains certain covenants that
limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness, pay
dividends or distributions on our common stock, repurchase our
common stock, and prepay subordinated indebtedness. The
Indenture also limits our ability to issue preferred stock, make
certain types of investments, merge or consolidate with another
company, guarantee other indebtedness, create liens and transfer
and sell assets.
The covenants governing the Notes impose significant operating
and financial restrictions which may substantially restrict and
adversely affect our ability to operate our business. See
Risk Factors Risks Related to Our High Level
of Indebtedness The covenants in the indenture
governing the Notes and our Senior Credit Facility impose
significant operating and financial restrictions which may
adversely affect our ability to operate our business. We
believe we were in compliance with all of the covenants in the
Indenture as of December 30, 2007.
Non-Recourse
Debt
South
Texas Detention Complex
We have a debt service requirement related to the development of
the South Texas Detention Complex, a 1,904-bed detention complex
in Frio County, Texas acquired in November 2005 from
Correctional Services Corporation, referred to as
CSC. CSC was awarded the contract in February 2004
by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, referred to as ICE, for
development and operation of the detention center. In order to
finance its construction, South Texas Local Development
Corporation, referred to as STLDC, was created and
issued $49.5 million in taxable revenue bonds.
Additionally, we have outstanding $5.0 million of
subordinated notes which represents the principal amount of
financing provided to STLDC by CSC for initial development.
These bonds mature in February 2016 and have fixed coupon rates
between 3.47% and 5.07%.
We have an operating agreement with STLDC, the owner of the
complex, which provides us with the sole and exclusive right to
operate and manage the detention center. The operating agreement
and bond indenture require the revenue from our contract with
ICE be used to fund the periodic debt service requirements as
they become due. The net revenues, if any, after various
expenses such as trustee fees, property taxes and insurance
premiums are distributed to us to cover operating expenses and
management fees. We are responsible for the entire operations of
the facility including all operating expenses and are required
to pay all operating expenses whether or not there are
sufficient revenues. STLDC has no liabilities resulting from its
ownership. The bonds have a ten year term and are non-recourse
to us and STLDC. The bonds are fully insured and the sole source
of payment for the bonds is the operating revenues of the
center. At the end of the ten year term of the bonds, title and
ownership of the facility transfers from STLDC to us. We have
determined that we are the primary beneficiary of STLDC and
consolidate the entity as a result.
53
On February 1, 2007, we made a payment of $4.1 million
for the current portion of our periodic debt service requirement
in relation to STLDC operating agreement and bond indenture. As
of December 30, 2007, the remaining balance of the debt
service requirement is $45.3 million, of which
$4.3 million is due within the next twelve months. Also as
of December 30, 2007, $14.2 million is included in
non-current restricted cash as funds held in trust with respect
to the STLDC for debt service and other reserves.
Northwest
Detention Center
On June 30, 2003, CSC arranged financing for the
construction of the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma,
Washington, referred to as the Northwest Detention Center, which
was completed and opened for operation in April 2004 and
acquired by us in November 2005. In connection with the original
financing, CSC of Tacoma LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CSC,
issued a $57.0 million note payable to the Washington
Economic Development Finance Authority, referred to as WEDFA, an
instrumentality of the State of Washington, which issued revenue
bonds and subsequently loaned the proceeds of the bond issuance
back to CSC for the purposes of constructing the Northwest
Detention Center. The bonds are non-recourse to us and the loan
from WEDFA to CSC is non-recourse to us. These bonds mature in
February 2014 and have fixed coupon rates between 2.90% and
4.10%.
The proceeds of the loan were disbursed into escrow accounts
held in trust to be used to pay the issuance costs for the
revenue bonds, to construct the Northwest Detention Center and
to establish debt service and other reserves. No payments were
made during the fiscal December 30, 2007 in relation to the
WEDFA bond indenture. As of December 30, 2007, the
remaining balance of the debt service requirement is
$42.7 million, of which $5.4 is due within the next
12 months.
Included in non-current restricted cash equivalents and
investments is $2.3 million as of December 30, 2007 as
funds held in trust with respect to the Northwest Detention
Center for debt service and other reserves.
Australia
In connection with the financing and management of one
Australian facility, our wholly owned Australian subsidiary
financed the facilitys development and subsequent
expansion in 2003 with long-term debt obligations, which are
non-recourse to us. As a condition of the loan, we are required
to maintain a restricted cash balance of AUD 5.0 million,
which, at December 30, 2007, was approximately
$4.4 million. The term of the non-recourse debt is through
2017 and it bears interest at a variable rate quoted by certain
Australian banks plus 140 basis points. Any obligations or
liabilities of the subsidiary are matched by a similar or
corresponding commitment from the government of the State of
Victoria.
Guarantees
In connection with the creation of SACS, we entered into certain
guarantees related to the financing, construction and operation
of the prison. We guaranteed certain obligations of SACS under
its debt agreements up to a maximum amount of 60.0 million
South African Rand, or approximately $8.8 million, to
SACS senior lenders through the issuance of letters of
credit. Additionally, SACS is required to fund a restricted
account for the payment of certain costs in the event of
contract termination. We have guaranteed the payment of 50% of
amounts which may be payable by SACS into the restricted account
and provided a standby letter of credit of 7.5 million
South African Rand, or approximately $1.1 million, as
security for our guarantee. Our obligations under this guarantee
are indexed to the CPI and expire upon the release from SACS of
its obligations in respect of the restricted account under its
debt agreements. No amounts have been drawn against these
letters of credit, which are included in our outstanding letters
of credit under the revolving loan portion of our Senior Credit
Facility.
We have agreed to provide a loan, if necessary, of up to
20.0 million South African Rand, or approximately
$3.0 million, referred to as the Standby Facility, to SACS
for the purpose of financing the obligations under the contract
between SACS and the South African government. No amounts have
been funded under the Standby Facility, and we do not currently
anticipate that such funding will be required by SACS in the
future. Our obligations under the Standby Facility expire upon
the earlier of full funding or
54
release from SACS of its obligations under its debt agreements.
The lenders ability to draw on the Standby Facility is
limited to certain circumstances, including termination of the
contract.
We have also guaranteed certain obligations of SACS to the
security trustee for SACS lenders. We have secured our guarantee
to the security trustee by ceding our rights to claims against
SACS in respect of any loans or other finance agreements, and by
pledging our shares in SACS. Our liability under the guarantee
is limited to the cession and pledge of shares. The guarantee
expires upon expiration of the cession and pledge agreements.
In connection with a design, build, finance and maintenance
contract for a facility in Canada, we guaranteed certain
potential tax obligations of a not-for-profit entity. The
potential estimated exposure of these obligations is CAD
2.5 million, or approximately $2.5 million commencing
in 2017. We have a liability of $1.5 million and
$0.7 million related to this exposure as of
December 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006, respectively.
To secure this guarantee, we purchased Canadian dollar
denominated securities with maturities matched to the estimated
tax obligations in 2017 to 2021. We have recorded an asset and a
liability equal to the current fair market value of those
securities on our balance sheet. We do not currently operate or
manage this facility.
At December 30, 2007, we also had outstanding six letters
of guarantee totaling approximately $6.4 million under
separate international facilities. We do not have any off
balance sheet arrangements.
Derivatives
Effective September 18, 2003, we entered into interest rate
swap agreements in the aggregate notional amount of
$50.0 million. We have designated the swaps as hedges
against changes in the fair value of a designated portion of the
Notes due to changes in underlying interest rates. Changes in
the fair value of the interest rate swaps are recorded in
earnings along with related designated changes in the value of
the Notes. The agreements, which have payment and expiration
dates and call provisions that coincide with the terms of the
Notes, effectively convert $50.0 million of the Notes into
variable rate obligations. Under the agreements, we receive a
fixed interest rate payment from the financial counterparties to
the agreements equal to 8.25% per year calculated on the
notional $50.0 million amount, while we make a variable
interest rate payment to the same counterparties equal to the
six-month LIBOR plus a fixed margin of 3.45%, also calculated on
the notional $50.0 million amount. As of December 30,
2007 and December 31, 2006, the fair value of the swap
liability totaled approximately $0 and $1.7 million,
respectively, and is included in other non-current liabilities
in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The decrease in
our swap liability is due to favorable changes in the interest
rates during 2007. There was no material ineffectiveness of our
interest rate swaps for the years ended December 30, 2007
or December 31, 2006.
Our Australian subsidiary is a party to an interest rate swap
agreement to fix the interest rate on the variable rate
non-recourse debt to 9.7%. We have determined the swap to be an
effective cash flow hedge. Accordingly, we record the value of
the interest rate swap in accumulated other comprehensive
income, net of applicable income taxes. The total value of the
swap as of December 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006 was
approximately $5.8 million and $3.2 million,
respectively, and is recorded as a component of other
non-current assets and of other non-current liabilities in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.
There was no material ineffectiveness of the Companys
interest rate swaps for the fiscal years presented. The Company
does not expect to enter into any transactions during the next
twelve months which would result in the reclassification into
earnings or losses associated with this swap currently reported
in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss).
Cash
Flow
Cash and cash equivalents as of December 30, 2007 were
$44.4 million, compared to $111.5 million as of
December 31, 2006.
Cash provided by operating activities of continuing operations
in 2007, 2006 and 2005 was $80.2 million,
$45.8 million, and $31.4 million, respectively. Cash
provided by operating activities of continuing operations in
2007 was positively impacted by an increase in net income of
$11.0 million in addition to $33.9 million of
depreciation and amortization expense. Cash provided by
operating activities of continuing operations in 2006
55
was positively impacted by $22.2 million of depreciation
and amortization expense as well as an increase in accounts
payable and accrued expenses. Cash provided by operating
activities of continuing operations in 2005 was positively
impacted by impairment charges of $20.9 million for our
Michigan Correctional Facility and $4.3 million related to
our Jena facility.
Cash provided by operating activities of continuing operations
was negatively impacted in 2007 by an increase in accounts
receivable of $7.3 million, increases in our deferred
income tax benefits of $5.1 million, and more earnings in
the current year attributable to our investment in our South
Africa joint venture, SACS. Cash provided by operating
activities of continuing operations in 2006 was negatively
impacted by an increase in accounts receivable. The increase in
accounts receivable was attributable to the increase in value of
our Australian subsidiarys accounts receivable due to an
increase in foreign exchange rates, the addition of CSC for the
entire year, new contracts at New Castle, the South Florida
Evaluation and Treatment Center, Fort Bayard Medical Center
and Campsfield House as well as slightly higher billings
reflecting a general increase in facility occupancy levels.
Cash used in investing activities of continuing operations in
2007 was $518.9 million due to our cash investment in CPT
of $410.5 million and capital expenditures of
$115.2 million. Cash used in investing activities of
continuing operations in 2006 was $16.9 million. Cash used
by investing activities of continuing operations in 2005 was
$104.5 million. Cash used in investing activities in 2006
relate to capital expenditures partially offset by purchase
price adjustments related to the sale of YSI. Cash used in
investing activities in 2005 reflect the acquisition of CSC.
Cash provided by financing activities in 2007 was
$372.3 million and reflects proceeds received from the
equity offering of $227.5 million as well as cash proceeds
of $387.0 million from our Term Loan B and the Revolver.
These cash flows from financing activities are offset by
payments on the Term Loan B of $202.7 million, payments on
the Revolver of $22.0 million and payments on other long
term debt of $12.6 million. Cash provided by financing
activities in 2006 was $21.7 million and reflects proceeds
received from the equity offering of $99.9 million and
proceeds received from the exercise of stock options of
$5.4 million offset by payments of debt of
$82.6 million. Cash provided by financing activities in
2005 was $24.6 million. Cash provided by financing
activities in 2005 reflects the payoff of $53.4 million and
the refinancing of $75.0 million of the term loan portion
of the Senior Credit Facility.
Contractual
Obligations and Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
The following is a table of certain of our contractual
obligations, as of December 30, 2007, which requires us to
make payments over the periods presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
Contractual Obligations
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Long-term debt obligations
|
|
$
|
150,083
|
|
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
150,000
|
|
Term Loan B
|
|
|
162,263
|
|
|
|
3,650
|
|
|
|
7,300
|
|
|
|
7,300
|
|
|
|
144,013
|
|
Capital lease obligations (includes imputed interest)
|
|
|
28,561
|
|
|
|
2,167
|
|
|
|
3,888
|
|
|
|
3,865
|
|
|
|
18,641
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
|
93,794
|
|
|
|
13,240
|
|
|
|
20,748
|
|
|
|
11,397
|
|
|
|
48,409
|
|
Non-recourse debt
|
|
|
140,926
|
|
|
|
12,978
|
|
|
|
28,264
|
|
|
|
31,782
|
|
|
|
67,902
|
|
Estimated interest payments on debt (a)
|
|
|
166,830
|
|
|
|
31,127
|
|
|
|
60,051
|
|
|
|
55,575
|
|
|
|
20,077
|
|
Estimated payments on interest rate swaps (a)
|
|
|
(1,401
|
)
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
(636
|
)
|
|
|
(636
|
)
|
|
|
(159
|
)
|
Estimated funding of pension and other post retirement benefits
|
|
|
17,938
|
|
|
|
12,474
|
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
320
|
|
|
|
4,870
|
|
Estimated construction commitments
|
|
|
147,300
|
|
|
|
93,800
|
|
|
|
53,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated tax payments for uncertain tax positions
|
|
|
3,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
909,577
|
|
|
|
169,494
|
|
|
$
|
176,727
|
|
|
$
|
109,603
|
|
|
$
|
453,753
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Due to the uncertainties of future LIBOR rates, the variable
interest payments on our credit facility and swap agreements
were calculated using a LIBOR rate of 4.08% based on our bank
rates as of January 11, 2008. |
We do not have any additional off balance sheet arrangements
which would subject us to additional liabilities.
Inflation
We believe that inflation, in general, did not have a material
effect on our results of operations during 2007, 2006 and 2005.
While some of our contracts include provisions for inflationary
indexing, inflation could have a substantial adverse effect on
our results of operations in the future to the extent that wages
and salaries, which represent our largest expense, increase at a
faster rate than the per diem or fixed rates received by us for
our management services.
Outlook
The following discussion of our future performance contains
statements that are not historical statements and, therefore,
constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our
forward-looking statements are subject to risks and
uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ
materially from those stated or implied in the forward-looking
statement. Please refer to Item 1A. Risk
Factors in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
the Forward-Looking Statements Safe
Harbor, as well as the other disclosures contained in this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
for further discussion on forward-looking statements and the
risks and other factors that could prevent us from achieving our
goals and cause the assumptions underlying the forward-looking
statements and the actual results to differ materially from
those expressed in or implied by those forward-looking
statements.
With prison populations growing at 3% to 5% a year, the private
corrections industry has played an increasingly important role
in addressing U.S. detention and correctional needs. The
number of State and Federal prisoners housed in private
facilities increased 10.1% since mid-year 2005 with states such
as Texas, Indiana, Colorado and Florida accounting for more than
half of the increase. At June 2006, approximately 7.2% of the
estimated 1.6 million State and Federal prisoners
incarcerated in the United States were held in private
facilities, up from 6.5% in 2000. In addition to our strong
positions in Texas and Florida and in the U.S. market in
general, we believe we are the only publicly traded
U.S. correctional company with international operations.
With the existing operations in South Africa and Australia and
the management of the 198-bed Campsfield House Immigration
Removal Centre in the United Kingdom beginning in the Second
Quarter of 2006, we believe that our international presence
positions us to capitalize on growth opportunities within the
private corrections and detention industry in new and
established international markets.
We intend to pursue a diversified growth strategy by winning new
customers and contracts, expanding our government services
portfolio and pursuing selective acquisition opportunities. We
achieve organic growth through competitive bidding that begins
with the issuance by a government agency of a request for
proposal, or RFP. We primarily rely on the RFP process for
organic growth in our U.S. and international corrections
operations as well as in our mental health and residential
treatment services. We believe that our long operating history
and reputation have earned us credibility with both existing and
prospective clients when bidding on new facility management
contracts or when renewing existing contracts. Our success in
the RFP process has resulted in a pipeline of new projects with
significant revenue potential. In 2007, we announced 11 new
contracts including a contract to reactivate the LaSalle
Detention Facility in Jena, Louisiana. The new contracts
represent 8,751 new beds. This compares to the 10 new projects
announced in 2006 representing 4,934 new beds. As of
December 30, 2007, we have 10 facilities under development
or pending commencement of operations which represent
approximately 6,800 beds. In addition to pursuing organic growth
through the RFP process, we will from time to time selectively
consider the financing and construction of new facilities or
expansions to existing facilities on a speculative basis without
having a signed contract with a known customer. We also plan to
leverage our experience to expand the range of
government-outsourced
57
services that we provide. We will continue to pursue selected
acquisition opportunities in our core services and other
government services areas that meet our criteria for growth and
profitability.
Revenue
Domestically, we continue to be encouraged by the number of
opportunities that have recently developed in the privatized
corrections and detention industry. The need for additional bed
space at the federal, state and local levels has been as strong
as it has been at any time during recent years, and we currently
expect that trend to continue for the foreseeable future.
Overcrowding at corrections facilities in various states, most
recently California and Arizona and increased demand for bed
space at federal prisons and detention facilities primarily
resulting from government initiatives to improve immigration
security are two of the factors that have contributed to the
greater number of opportunities for privatization. We plan to
actively bid on any new projects that fit our target profile for
profitability and operational risk. Although we are pleased with
the overall industry outlook, positive trends in the industry
may be offset by several factors, including budgetary
constraints, unanticipated contract terminations contract
non-renewals and contract re-bids. In Michigan, the State
cancelled our Michigan Youth Correctional Facility management
contract in 2005 based upon the Governors veto of funding
for the project. Although we do not expect this termination to
represent a trend, any future unexpected terminations of our
existing management contracts could have a material adverse
impact on our revenues. Additionally, several of our management
contracts are up for renewal
and/or
re-bid in 2008. Although we have historically had a relative
high contract renewal rate, there can be no assurance that we
will be able to renew our management contracts scheduled to
expire in 2008 on favorable terms, or at all. Also, while we are
pleased with our track record in re-bid situations, we cannot
assure that we will prevail in any such future situations.
Internationally, in the United Kingdom, we recently won our
first contract since re-establishing operations. We believe that
additional opportunities will become available in that market
and plan to actively bid on any opportunities that fit our
target profile for profitability and operational risk. In South
Africa, we continue to promote government procurements for the
private development and operation of one or more correctional
facilities in the near future. We expect to bid on any suitable
opportunities.
With respect to our mental health/residential treatment services
business conducted through our wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO
Care, Inc., we are currently pursuing a number of business
development opportunities. In addition, we continue to expend
resources on informing state and local governments about the
benefits of privatization and we anticipate that there will be
new opportunities in the future as those efforts begin to yield
results. We believe we are well positioned to capitalize on any
suitable opportunities that become available in this area.
We currently have ten projects under various stages of
construction with approximately 6,800 beds that will become
available upon completion. Subject to achieving our occupancy
targets these projects are expected to generate approximately
$143.0 million dollars in combined annual operating
revenues when opened between the first quarter of 2008 and the
third quarter of 2009. We believe that these projects comprise
the largest and most diversified organic growth pipeline in our
industry. In addition, we have approximately 730 additional
empty beds available at two of our facilities to meet our
customers potential future needs for bed space.
Operating
Expenses
Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the
operation and management of our correctional, detention and
mental health facilities. In 2007, operating expenses totaled
approximately 81.0% of our consolidated revenues. Our operating
expenses as a percentage of revenue in 2008 will be impacted by
several factors. We could experience continued savings under our
general liability, auto liability and workers compensation
insurance program, although the amount of these potential
savings cannot be predicted. These savings, which totaled
$0.9 million, $4.0 million and $3.4 million in
fiscal years 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, are now
reflected in our current actuarial projections and are a result
of improved claims experience and loss development as compared
to our results under our prior insurance program. Prior to
October 2, 2002, our insurance coverage was provided
through an insurance program established by TWC, our
58
former parent company. We experienced significant adverse claims
development in general liability and workers compensation
in the late 1990s. Beginning in approximately 1999, we
made significant operational changes and began to aggressively
manage our risk in a proactive manner. These changes have
resulted in improved claims experience and loss development,
which we are realizing in our actuarial projections. As a result
of improving loss trends, our independent actuary reduced its
expected losses for claims arising since October 2, 2002.
We expect future actuarial projections will result in smaller
annual adjustments as our improved claims experience represents
a more significant component of the historical losses used by
our actuary in calculating annual loss projections and related
reserve requirements. In the event our actual claims experience
worsens, we could experience increased reserve requirements
resulting in additional charges to operating income. In
addition, as a result of our CPT acquisition, we will no longer
incur lease expense relating to ten of the facilities purchased
in that transaction which we formerly leased from CPT. During
2007, our operating expenses decreased by the aggregate amount
of that lease expense by $28.2 million. The savings in
facility usage fees was offset by an increase in depreciation
and amortization expense in the U.S. corrections segment by
$10.2 million. In the future, these reductions in operating
expenses may be offset by increased
start-up
expenses relating to a number of new projects, including our
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility in Georgia, Montgomery
County Detention Center and Rio Grande Correctional Facility
projects in Texas, Graceville Correctional Facility in Florida,
Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility in New Mexico, and
Maverick County Detention Center in Texas. Overall, excluding
start-up
expenses, we anticipate that operating expenses as a percentage
of our revenue will remain relatively flat, consistent with our
fiscal year ended December 30, 2007.
General
and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of
corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees
and other administrative expenses. We have recently incurred
increasing general and administrative costs including increased
costs associated with increases in business development costs,
professional fees and travel costs, primarily relating to our
mental health residential treatment services business. We expect
this trend to continue as we pursue additional business
development opportunities in all of our business lines and build
the corporate infrastructure necessary to support our mental
health residential treatment services business. We also plan to
continue expending resources on the evaluation of potential
acquisition targets.
Forward-Looking
Statements Safe Harbor
This report and the documents incorporated by reference herein
contain forward-looking statements within the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are any
statements that are not based on historical information.
Statements other than statements of historical facts included in
this report, including, without limitation, statements regarding
our future financial position, business strategy, budgets,
projected costs and plans and objectives of management for
future operations, are forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the
use of forward-looking terminology such as may,
will, expect, anticipate,
intend, plan, believe,
seek, estimate or continue
or the negative of such words or variations of such words and
similar expressions. These statements are not guarantees of
future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and
assumptions, which are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual
outcomes and results may differ materially from what is
expressed or forecasted in such forward-looking statements and
we can give no assurance that such forward-looking statements
will prove to be correct. Important factors that could cause
actual results to differ materially from those expressed or
implied by the forward-looking statements, or cautionary
statements, include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
our ability to timely build
and/or open
facilities as planned, profitably manage such facilities and
successfully integrate such facilities into our operations
without substantial additional costs;
|
|
|
|
the instability of foreign exchange rates, exposing us to
currency risks in Australia, the United Kingdom, and South
Africa, or other countries in which we may choose to conduct our
business;
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
our ability to reactivate the Michigan Correctional Facility;
|
|
|
|
an increase in unreimbursed labor rates;
|
|
|
|
our ability to expand, diversify and grow our correctional and
mental health and residential treatment services;
|
|
|
|
our ability to win management contracts for which we have
submitted proposals and to retain existing management contracts;
|
|
|
|
our ability to raise new project development capital given the
often short-term nature of the customers commitment to use
newly developed facilities;
|
|
|
|
our ability to estimate the governments level of
dependency on privatized correctional services;
|
|
|
|
our ability to accurately project the size and growth of the
U.S. and international privatized corrections industry;
|
|
|
|
our ability to develop long-term earnings visibility;
|
|
|
|
our ability to obtain future financing at competitive rates;
|
|
|
|
our exposure to rising general insurance costs;
|
|
|
|
our exposure to claims for which we are uninsured;
|
|
|
|
our exposure to rising employee and inmate medical costs;
|
|
|
|
our ability to maintain occupancy rates at our facilities;
|
|
|
|
our ability to manage costs and expenses relating to ongoing
litigation arising from our operations;
|
|
|
|
our ability to accurately estimate on an annual basis, loss
reserves related to general liability, workers compensation and
automobile liability claims;
|
|
|
|
our ability to identify suitable acquisitions, and to
successfully complete and integrate such acquisitions on
satisfactory terms;
|
|
|
|
the ability of our government customers to secure budgetary
appropriations to fund their payment obligations to us; and
|
|
|
|
other factors contained in our filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or the SEC, including, but not limited to,
those detailed in this annual report on
Form 10-K,
our
Form 10-Qs
and our Form
8-Ks filed
with the SEC.
|
We undertake no obligation to update publicly any
forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise. All subsequent written
and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us, or
persons acting on our behalf, are expressly qualified in their
entirety by the cautionary statements included in this report.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Interest
Rate Risk
We are exposed to market risks related to changes in interest
rates with respect to our Senior Credit Facility. Payments under
the Senior Credit Facility are indexed to a variable interest
rate. Based on borrowings outstanding under the Term Loan B of
our Senior Credit Facility of $162.3 million as of
December 30, 2007, immediately following the acquisition of
CPT, for every one percent increase in the interest rate
applicable to the Senior Credit Facility, our total annual
interest expense would increase by $1.6 million.
Effective September 18, 2003, we entered into interest rate
swap agreements in the aggregate notional amount of
$50.0 million. We have designated the swaps as hedges
against changes in the fair value of a designated portion of the
Notes due to changes in underlying interest rates. Changes in
the fair value of the
60
interest rate swaps are recorded in earnings along with related
designated changes in the value of the Notes. The agreements,
which have payment and expiration dates and call provisions that
coincide with the terms of the Notes, effectively convert
$50.0 million of the Notes into variable rate obligations.
Under the agreements, we receive a fixed interest rate payment
from the financial counterparties to the agreements equal to
8.25% per year calculated on the notional $50.0 million
amount, while we make a variable interest rate payment to the
same counterparties equal to the six-month LIBOR plus a fixed
margin of 3.45%, also calculated on the notional
$50.0 million amount. For every one percent increase in the
interest rate applicable to the $50.0 million swap
agreements on the Notes described above, our total annual
interest expense would increase by $0.5 million.
We have entered into certain interest rate swap arrangements for
hedging purposes, fixing the interest rate on our Australian
non-recourse debt to 9.7%. The difference between the floating
rate and the swap rate on these instruments is recognized in
interest expense within the respective entity. Because the
interest rates with respect to these instruments are fixed, a
hypothetical 100 basis point change in the current interest
rate would not have a material impact on our financial condition
or results of operations.
Additionally, we invest our cash in a variety of short-term
financial instruments to provide a return. These instruments
generally consist of highly liquid investments with original
maturities at the date of purchase of three months or less.
While these instruments are subject to interest rate risk, a
hypothetical 100 basis point increase or decrease in market
interest rates would not have a material impact on our financial
condition or results of operations. As of December 30, 2007
and December 31, 2006 the fair value of the swap liability
totaled $(0) and $(1.7) million and is included in other
non-current assets or liabilities and as an adjustment to the
carrying value of the Notes in the accompanying consolidated
balance sheets.
Foreign
Currency Exchange Rate Risk
We are exposed to market risks related to fluctuations in
foreign currency exchange rates between the U.S. Dollar,
the Australian Dollar, the Canadian Dollar, the South African
Rand and the British Pound currency exchange rates. Based upon
our foreign currency exchange rate exposure as of
December 30, 2007 with respect to our international
operations, every 10 percent change in historical currency
rates would have approximately a $3.3 million effect on our
financial position and approximately a $1.0 million impact
on our results of operations over the next fiscal year.
61
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
MANAGEMENTS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
To the Shareholders of
The GEO Group, Inc.:
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been
prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States. They include amounts based on
judgments and estimates.
Representation in the consolidated financial statements and the
fairness and integrity of such statements are the responsibility
of management. In order to meet managements
responsibility, the Company maintains a system of internal
controls and procedures and a program of internal audits
designed to provide reasonable assurance that our assets are
controlled and safeguarded, that transactions are executed in
accordance with managements authorization and properly
recorded, and that accounting records may be relied upon in the
preparation of financial statements.
The consolidated financial statements have been audited by Grant
Thornton LLP, independent registered public accountants, whose
appointment by our Audit Committee was ratified by our
shareholders. Their report expresses a professional opinion as
to whether managements consolidated financial statements
considered in their entirety present fairly, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States,
the Companys financial position and results of operations.
Their audit was conducted in accordance with the standards of
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. As part of this
audit, Grant Thornton LLP considered the Companys system
of internal controls to the degree they deemed necessary to
determine the nature, timing, and extent of their audit tests
which support their opinion on the consolidated financial
statements.
The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors meets periodically
with representatives of management, the independent registered
public accountants and our internal auditors to review matters
relating to financial reporting, internal accounting controls
and auditing. Both the internal auditors and the independent
registered certified public accountants have unrestricted access
to the Audit Committee to discuss the results of their reviews.
George C. Zoley
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Wayne H. Calabrese
Vice Chairman, President
and Chief Operating Officer
John G. ORourke
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
62
MANAGEMENTS
ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL
OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Companys
internal control over financial reporting is a process designed
under the supervision of the Companys Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer that: (i) pertains to
the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail,
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions
of the Companys assets; (ii) provides reasonable
assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements for external reporting in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States, and that receipts and expenditures are being made
only in accordance with authorization of the Companys
management and directors; and (iii) provides reasonable
assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the
Companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedure may deteriorate.
Management has assessed the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 30, 2007. In making its assessment of internal
control over financial reporting, management used the criteria
set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations
(COSO) of the Treadway Commission in Internal
Control Integrated Framework.
The Company evaluated, with the participation of its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, its internal
control over financial reporting as of December 30, 2007,
based on the COSO Internal Control Integrated
Framework. Based on this evaluation, the Companys
management concluded that as of December 30, 2007, its
internal control over financial reporting is effective in
providing reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.
63
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and
Shareholders of The GEO Group, Inc.
We have audited The GEO Group and subsidiaries (the
Company) internal control over financial reporting as of
December 30, 2007, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO). The Companys management is responsible
for maintaining effective internal control over financial
reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, included in the
accompanying Managements Annual Report on Internal Control
Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on the Companys internal control over financial
reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, The GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries maintained,
in all material respects, effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 30, 2007, based on
criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by COSO.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of The GEO Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 30, 2007 and December 31,
2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, cash
flow, and shareholders equity and comprehensive income for
each of the two years then ended, and our report dated
February 14, 2008 expressed an unqualified opinion on those
financial statements.
Miami, FL
February 14, 2008
64
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and
Shareholders of The GEO Group, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
The GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company)
as of December 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and the
related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and
shareholders equity and comprehensive income for each of
the two years then ended. Our audits of the basic financial
statements included the financial statement schedule listed in
the index appearing under Item 15. These financial
statements and this financial statement schedule are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements and this financial statement schedule based on our
audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of The GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and the
consolidated results of their operations and their consolidated
cash flows for each of the two years then ended in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America. Also in our opinion, the related financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all
material respects, the information set forth therein.
As described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted
the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board
Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes and effective January 2, 2006, the
Company changed its method of accounting for share-based
compensation to adopt Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123R, Share-Based Payment. As described in
Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements, the
Company recognized the funded status of its benefit plans in
accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers Accounting for
Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement
Plans an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87,
88, 106, and 132R, as of December 31, 2006.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), The
GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries internal control over
financial reporting as of December 30, 2007, based on
criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report
dated February 14, 2008 expressed an unqualified opinion
thereon.
Miami, FL
February 14, 2008
65
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM
The Board of Directors and Shareholders of The GEO Group, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of
income, shareholders equity and comprehensive income, and
cash flows of The Geo Group, Inc., for the year ended
January 1, 2006. Our audit also included the financial
statement schedule for the year ended January 1, 2006
listed in the index at item 15(a). These financial
statements and schedule are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our
audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
results of The GEO Group, Inc.s operations and its cash
flows for the year ended January 1, 2006, in conformity
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also,
in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein for the year ended January 1,
2006.
West Palm Beach, Florida
March 14, 2006
66
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
Fiscal Years Ended December 30, 2007, December 31,
2006, and January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
1,024,832
|
|
|
$
|
860,882
|
|
|
$
|
612,900
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
830,634
|
|
|
|
718,178
|
|
|
|
540,128
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
33,870
|
|
|
|
22,235
|
|
|
|
15,876
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
64,492
|
|
|
|
56,268
|
|
|
|
48,958
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
95,836
|
|
|
|
64,201
|
|
|
|
7,938
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
|
8,746
|
|
|
|
10,687
|
|
|
|
9,154
|
|
Interest Expense
|
|
|
(36,051
|
)
|
|
|
(28,231
|
)
|
|
|
(23,016
|
)
|
Write-off of Deferred Financing Fees from Extinguishment
of Debt
|
|
|
(4,794
|
)
|
|
|
(1,295
|
)
|
|
|
(1,360
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) Before Income Taxes, Minority Interest,
Equity in Earnings of Affiliates, and Discontinued
Operations
|
|
|
63,737
|
|
|
|
45,362
|
|
|
|
(7,284
|
)
|
Provision (benefit) for Income Taxes
|
|
|
24,226
|
|
|
|
16,505
|
|
|
|
(11,826
|
)
|
Minority Interest
|
|
|
(397
|
)
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
(742
|
)
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliates, net of income tax
provision (benefit) of $1,030, $56, and $(2,016)
|
|
|
2,151
|
|
|
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
2,079
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations
|
|
|
41,265
|
|
|
|
30,308
|
|
|
|
5,879
|
|
Income (loss) from Discontinued Operations, net of tax
provision (benefit) of $377, $(151), and $895
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
(277
|
)
|
|
|
1,127
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
$
|
41,845
|
|
|
$
|
30,031
|
|
|
$
|
7,006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
47,727
|
|
|
|
34,442
|
|
|
|
28,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
49,192
|
|
|
|
35,744
|
|
|
|
30,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per Common Share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.87
|
|
|
$
|
0.88
|
|
|
$
|
0.20
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share basic
|
|
$
|
0.88
|
|
|
$
|
0.87
|
|
|
$
|
0.24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.84
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share diluted
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.84
|
|
|
$
|
0.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
67
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except share data)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
44,403
|
|
|
$
|
111,520
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
13,227
|
|
|
|
13,953
|
|
Accounts receivable, less allowance for doubtful accounts of
$445 and $926
|
|
|
172,291
|
|
|
|
162,867
|
|
Deferred income tax asset, net
|
|
|
19,705
|
|
|
|
19,492
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
14,892
|
|
|
|
14,922
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
264,518
|
|
|
|
322,754
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Cash
|
|
|
20,880
|
|
|
|
19,698
|
|
Property and Equipment, Net
|
|
|
783,612
|
|
|
|
287,374
|
|
Assets Held for Sale
|
|
|
1,265
|
|
|
|
1,610
|
|
Direct Finance Lease Receivable
|
|
|
43,213
|
|
|
|
39,271
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Assets, Net
|
|
|
4,918
|
|
|
|
4,941
|
|
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, Net
|
|
|
37,230
|
|
|
|
41,554
|
|
Other Non-Current Assets
|
|
|
36,998
|
|
|
|
26,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,192,634
|
|
|
$
|
743,453
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
48,661
|
|
|
$
|
45,345
|
|
Accrued payroll and related taxes
|
|
|
34,766
|
|
|
|
31,320
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
85,528
|
|
|
|
81,220
|
|
Current portion of deferred revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,830
|
|
Current portion of capital lease obligations, long-term debt and
non-recourse debt
|
|
|
17,477
|
|
|
|
12,685
|
|
Current liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
186,432
|
|
|
|
173,703
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,755
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Liability
|
|
|
223
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority Interest
|
|
|
1,642
|
|
|
|
1,297
|
|
Other Non-Current Liabilities
|
|
|
30,179
|
|
|
|
24,816
|
|
Capital Lease Obligations
|
|
|
15,800
|
|
|
|
16,621
|
|
Long-Term Debt
|
|
|
305,678
|
|
|
|
144,971
|
|
Non-Recourse Debt
|
|
|
124,975
|
|
|
|
131,680
|
|
Commitments and Contingencies (Note 13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 30,000,000 shares
authorized, none issued or outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 90,000,000 shares
authorized, 67,050,596 and 66,497,168 issued and 50,975,596 and
39,497,168 outstanding
|
|
|
510
|
|
|
|
395
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
338,092
|
|
|
|
143,035
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
241,071
|
|
|
|
201,697
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
6,920
|
|
|
|
2,393
|
|
Treasury stock 16,075,000 and 27,000,000 shares
|
|
|
(58,888
|
)
|
|
|
(98,910
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
527,705
|
|
|
|
248,610
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,192,634
|
|
|
$
|
743,453
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
68
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Fiscal Years Ended December 30, 2007, December 31,
2006, and January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
Cash Flow from Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
41,265
|
|
|
$
|
30,308
|
|
|
$
|
5,879
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile income from continuing operations to
net cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,859
|
|
Idle facility charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,255
|
|
Amortization of unearned stock-based compensation
|
|
|
2,474
|
|
|
|
966
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
935
|
|
|
|
374
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expenses
|
|
|
33,870
|
|
|
|
22,235
|
|
|
|
15,876
|
|
Amortization of debt issuance costs and discount
|
|
|
2,524
|
|
|
|
1,089
|
|
|
|
449
|
|
Deferred tax benefit
|
|
|
(5,077
|
)
|
|
|
(5,080
|
)
|
|
|
(10,614
|
)
|
(Recovery) Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(176
|
)
|
|
|
762
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
|
|
(2,151
|
)
|
|
|
(1,576
|
)
|
|
|
(2,079
|
)
|
Minority interests in earnings of consolidated entity
|
|
|
397
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
742
|
|
Dividend to minority interest
|
|
|
(389
|
)
|
|
|
(757
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax (benefit) provision of equity compensation
|
|
|
(3,061
|
)
|
|
|
(2,793
|
)
|
|
|
731
|
|
Write-off of deferred financing fees from extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
4,794
|
|
|
|
1,295
|
|
|
|
1,360
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(7,262
|
)
|
|
|
(35,733
|
)
|
|
|
(7,238
|
)
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
(310
|
)
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
(3,235
|
)
|
Other assets
|
|
|
4,911
|
|
|
|
(366
|
)
|
|
|
(564
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
|
(2,083
|
)
|
|
|
30,881
|
|
|
|
5,208
|
|
Accrued payroll and related taxes
|
|
|
1,517
|
|
|
|
3,797
|
|
|
|
(996
|
)
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(1,576
|
)
|
|
|
(1,003
|
)
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
8,186
|
|
|
|
1,799
|
|
|
|
1,763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities of continuing
operations
|
|
|
80,212
|
|
|
|
45,786
|
|
|
|
31,393
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities of
discontinued operations
|
|
|
(1,284
|
)
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
|
3,420
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
78,928
|
|
|
|
45,952
|
|
|
|
34,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(410,473
|
)
|
|
|
(2,578
|
)
|
|
|
(79,290
|
)
|
YSI purchase price adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,080
|
|
|
|
|
|
CSC purchase price adjustment
|
|
|
2,291
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of assets
|
|
|
4,476
|
|
|
|
20,246
|
|
|
|
707
|
|
Proceeds from sales of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,000
|
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(7,285
|
)
|
|
|
(4,406
|
)
|
Purchases of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,000
|
)
|
Insurance proceeds related to hurricane damages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
781
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(115,204
|
)
|
|
|
(43,165
|
)
|
|
|
(31,465
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities of continuing operations
|
|
|
(518,930
|
)
|
|
|
(16,921
|
)
|
|
|
(104,454
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by investing activities of discontinued
operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(518,930
|
)
|
|
|
(16,921
|
)
|
|
|
(92,954
|
)
|
Cash Flow from Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from equity offering, net
|
|
|
227,485
|
|
|
|
99,936
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
|
|
387,000
|
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
Income tax benefit of equity compensation
|
|
|
3,061
|
|
|
|
2,793
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(9,210
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of stock options from employees and directors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,955
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(237,299
|
)
|
|
|
(82,627
|
)
|
|
|
(53,398
|
)
|
Proceeds from the exercise of stock options
|
|
|
1,239
|
|
|
|
5,405
|
|
|
|
2,999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
372,276
|
|
|
|
21,663
|
|
|
|
24,601
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
|
|
609
|
|
|
|
3,732
|
|
|
|
(1,371
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (Decrease) Increase in Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
|
|
(67,117
|
)
|
|
|
54,426
|
|
|
|
(34,911
|
)
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, beginning of period
|
|
|
111,520
|
|
|
|
57,094
|
|
|
|
92,005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, end of period
|
|
$
|
44,403
|
|
|
$
|
111,520
|
|
|
$
|
57,094
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Disclosures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid (received) during the year for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$
|
26,413
|
|
|
$
|
(853
|
)
|
|
$
|
(636
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
28,470
|
|
|
$
|
25,740
|
|
|
$
|
21,181
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds receivable from insurance claim
|
|
$
|
2,118
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of assets acquired, net of cash acquired
|
|
$
|
406,368
|
|
|
$
|
2,578
|
|
|
$
|
223,934
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extinguishment of pre-acquisition liabilities, net
|
|
$
|
6,663
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities assumed
|
|
$
|
2,558
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
144,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
410,473
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
79,290
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short term borrowings for deposit on asset
|
|
$
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of assets in exchange for note receivable
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
69
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Fiscal Years Ended December 30, 2007, December 31,
2006, and January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Treasury Stock
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-In
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders
|
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Balance, January 2, 2005
|
|
|
28,522
|
|
|
$
|
285
|
|
|
$
|
66,815
|
|
|
$
|
164,660
|
|
|
$
|
(141
|
)
|
|
|
(36,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(131,880
|
)
|
|
$
|
99,739
|
|
Proceeds from stock options exercised
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
2,993
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,999
|
|
Tax benefit related to employee stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
731
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
731
|
|
Acceleration of vesting on employee stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in foreign currency translation, net of income tax
benefit of $2,158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,375
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment, net of income tax expense
of $8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain on derivative instruments, net of income tax
expense of $625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,074
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, January 1, 2006
|
|
|
29,074
|
|
|
|
291
|
|
|
|
70,590
|
|
|
|
171,666
|
|
|
|
(2,073
|
)
|
|
|
(36,000
|
)
|
|
|
(131,880
|
)
|
|
|
108,594
|
|
Proceeds from stock options exercised
|
|
|
973
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
5,395
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,405
|
|
Tax benefit related to employee stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,793
|
|
Stock based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
374
|
|
Restricted stock granted
|
|
|
450
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
966
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
966
|
|
Issuance of treasury stock in conjunction with offering
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
66,876
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
|
|
32,970
|
|
|
|
99,936
|
|
Buyout of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,955
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,955
|
)
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,031
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in foreign currency translation, net of income tax
expense of $2,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,846
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain on derivative instruments, net of income tax
expense of $1,121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,553
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,430
|
|
Adoption of FAS 158 (Note 15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,933
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,933
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2006
|
|
|
39,497
|
|
|
|
395
|
|
|
|
143,035
|
|
|
|
201,697
|
|
|
|
2,393
|
|
|
|
(27,000
|
)
|
|
|
(98,910
|
)
|
|
|
248,610
|
|
Adoption of FIN 48 January 1, 2007 (Note 17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,471
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,471
|
)
|
Proceeds from stock options exercised
|
|
|
267
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
1,236
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,239
|
|
Tax benefit related to employee stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,061
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,061
|
|
Stock based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
935
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
935
|
|
Restricted stock granted
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock cancelled
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,474
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,474
|
|
Issuance of treasury stock in conjunction with offering
|
|
|
10,925
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
187,354
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,925
|
|
|
|
40,022
|
|
|
|
227,485
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,845
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in foreign currency translation, net of income tax
expense of $180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,898
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension liability adjustment, net of income tax benefit of $203
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain on derivative instruments, net of income tax
expense of $807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,317
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 30, 2007
|
|
|
50,976
|
|
|
$
|
510
|
|
|
$
|
338,092
|
|
|
$
|
241,071
|
|
|
$
|
6,920
|
|
|
|
(16,075
|
)
|
|
$
|
(58,888
|
)
|
|
$
|
527,705
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
70
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the
Fiscal Years Ended December 30, 2007, December 31,
2006, and January 1, 2006
|
|
1.
|
Summary
of Business Operations and Significant Accounting
Policies
|
The GEO Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, and subsidiaries
(the Company) is a leading developer and manager of
privatized correctional, detention and mental health residential
treatment services facilities located in the United States,
Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Canada.
On March 23, 2007, the Company sold in a follow-on public
equity offering 5,462,500 shares of its common stock at a
price of $43.99 per share, (10,925,000 shares of its common
stock at a price of $22.00 per share reflecting the two-for-one
stock split). All shares were issued from treasury. The
aggregate net proceeds to the Company from the offering (after
deducting underwriters discounts and expenses of
$12.8 million) were $227.5 million. On March 26,
2007, the Company utilized $200.0 million of the net
proceeds from the offering to repay outstanding debt under the
Term Loan B portion of the Third Amended and Restated Credit
Agreement, refered to as the Senior Credit Facility
(Note 11). The Company used the balance of the proceeds
from the offering for general corporate purposes, which included
working capital, capital expenditures and potential acquisitions
of complementary businesses and other assets.
On January 24, 2007, the Company completed its acquisition
of CentraCore Properties Trust (CPT), a Maryland
real estate investment trust, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of September 19, 2006 (the Merger
Agreement), by and among the Company, GEO Acquisition II,
Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company
(Merger Sub) and CPT. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, CPT merged with and into Merger Sub (the
Merger), with Merger Sub being the surviving
corporation of the Merger.
The Company paid an aggregate purchase price of approximately
$421.6 million for the acquisition of CPT, inclusive of the
payment of approximately $368.3 million in exchange for the
common stock and the options, the repayment of approximately
$40.0 million in CPT debt and the payment of approximately
$13.3 million in transaction related fees and expenses. The
Company financed the acquisition through the use of
$365.0 million in new borrowings under a new Term Loan B
and approximately $65.7 million in cash on hand. The
Company deferred debt issuance costs of $9.1 million
related to the new $365 million term loan. These costs are
being amortized over the life of the term loan. As a result of
the acquisition, the Company no longer has ongoing lease expense
related to the properties the Company previously leased from
CPT. However, the Company will have increased depreciation
expense reflecting its ownership of the properties and higher
interest expense as a result of borrowings used to fund the
acquisition.
On June 12, 2006, the Company sold in a follow-on public
offering 3,000,000 shares of its common stock at a price of
$35.46 per share (9,000,000 shares of its common stock at a
price of $11.82 reflecting the stock splits effective
October 2, 2006 and June 1, 2007). All shares were
issued from treasury. The aggregate net proceeds (after
deducting underwriters discounts and expenses of
$6.4 million) was approximately $100.0 million. On
June 13, 2006, the Company utilized approximately
$74.6 million of the proceeds to repay all outstanding debt
under the term loan portion of the Companys Senior Credit
Facility. In addition, on August 11, 2006, the Company used
$4.0 million of the proceeds of the offering to purchase
from certain directors, executive officers and employees stock
options that were currently outstanding and exercisable, and
which were due to expire within the next three years. The
balance of the net proceeds was used for general corporate
purposes including working capital, capital expenditures and the
acquisition of CPT.
The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States. The significant accounting policies of the
Company are described below.
Fiscal
Year
The Companys fiscal year ends on the Sunday closest to the
calendar year end. Fiscal years 2007, 2006 and 2005 each
included 52 weeks. The Company reports the results of its
South African equity affiliate, South
71
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
African Custodial Services Pty. Limited, (SACS), and
its consolidated South African entity, South African Custodial
Management Pty. Limited (SACM) on a calendar year
end, due to the availability of information.
Basis
of Presentation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
the Company and all controlled subsidiaries. Investments in 50%
owned affiliates, which the Company does not control, are
accounted for under the equity method of accounting.
Intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in
consolidation.
Reclassifications
Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to
current year presentation. These prior year amounts reclassified
include: (i) Facility construction and design, which was
classified in fiscal year ended 2006 as other in the
Operating and Reporting Segment (Note 16);
(ii) construction retainage payable, included in accrued
expenses in the accompanying balance sheets for the fiscal years
ended 2007 and 2006, was reclassified from accounts payable in
fiscal 2006; (iii) facility construction in progress has
been reclassified in 2006 from buildings and improvements
(Note 5); and (iv) certain amounts have been
reclassified from Accrued expenses Other
(Note 10).
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States requires management to make certain estimates,
judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the
reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting
period. The Companys significant estimates include
reserves for self-insured retention related to general liability
insurance, workers compensation insurance, auto liability
insurance, employer group health insurance, percentage of
completion and estimated cost to complete for construction
projects, stock based compensation, allowance for doubtful
accounts and accrued vacation. These estimates and assumptions
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the
date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of
revenues and expenses during the reporting period. While the
Company believes that such estimates are fair when considered in
conjunction with the consolidated financial statements taken as
a whole, the actual amounts of such estimates, when known, will
vary from these estimates. If actual results significantly
differ from the Companys estimates, the Companys
financial condition and results of operations could be
materially impacted.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, restricted
cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses
approximate their fair value due to the short maturity of these
items. The carrying value of the Companys long-term debt
related to its Senior Credit Facility (See
Note 11) and non-recourse debt approximates fair value
based on the variable interest rates on the debt. For the
Companys
81/4% Senior
Unsecured Notes, the stated value and fair value based on quoted
market rates was $150.0 million and $151.5 million,
respectively, at December 30, 2007. For the Companys
non-recourse debt related to the South Texas Detention Complex
and Northwest Detention Center, the combined stated value and
fair value based on quoted market rates was $88.0 million
and $85.7 million, respectively, at December 30, 2007.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents include all interest-bearing deposits
or investments with original maturities of three months or less.
72
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Accounts
Receivable
The Company extends credit to the governmental agencies it
contracts with and other parties in the normal course of
business as a result of billing and receiving payment for
services thirty to sixty days in arrears. Further, the Company
regularly reviews outstanding receivables, and provides
estimated losses through an allowance for doubtful accounts. In
evaluating the level of established loss reserves, the Company
makes judgments regarding its customers ability to make
required payments, economic events and other factors. As the
financial condition of these parties change, circumstances
develop or additional information becomes available, adjustments
to the allowance for doubtful accounts may be required. The
Company also performs ongoing credit evaluations of
customers financial condition and generally does not
require collateral. The Company maintains reserves for potential
credit losses, and such losses traditionally have been within
its expectations.
Notes
Receivable
Immediately following the purchase of CSC in November 2005, the
Company sold Youth Services International, Inc., the former
juvenile services division of CSC, for $3.75 million,
$1.75 million of which was paid in cash and the remaining
$2.0 million of which was paid in the form of a promissory
note accruing interest at a rate of 6% per annum. Subsequently,
during 2006, the Company received approximately
$2.0 million in additional sales proceeds, consisting of
approximately $1.5 million in cash and a $0.5 million
increase in the promissory note related to the final purchase
price of YSI. Principal and interest are due quarterly, and the
remaining balance of $1.0 million is due in November 2008.
The balance of $1.0 million and $1.4 million are
included in accounts receivable in the consolidated balance
sheets as of December 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006,
respectively.
The Company has notes receivable from its former joint venture
partner in the United Kingdom related to a subordinated loan
made to various projects while an active member of the
partnership. The balances of $5.1 million and
$5.0 million are included in other current assets and other
non current assets in the consolidated balance sheets as of
December 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006, respectively.
The notes bear interest at a rate of 13%, have semi-annual
payments due June 15 and December 15 through June 2018.
Inventories
Food and supplies inventories are carried at the lower of cost
or market, on a
first-in
first-out basis and are included in other current assets in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Uniform inventories
are carried at amortized cost and are amortized over a period of
eighteen months. The current portion of unamortized uniforms is
included in other current assets and the long-term portion is
included in other non-current assets in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
Restricted
Cash
The Company has current and long-term restricted cash as of
December 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006, presented as
such in the accompanying balance sheets. These balances are
primarily attributable to amounts held in escrow or in trust in
connection with the 1,904-bed South Texas Detention Complex in
Frio County, Texas and the 1000-bed Northwest Detention Center
in Tacoma, Washington. Additionally, the Companys wholly
owned Australian subsidiary financed a facilitys
development and subsequent expansion in 2003 with long-term debt
obligations, which are non-recourse to the Company (Note ll).
Costs
of Acquisition Opportunities
Internal costs associated with a business combination are
expensed as incurred. Direct and incremental costs related to
successful negotiations where the Company is the acquiring
company are capitalized as part of
73
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the cost of the acquisition. The Company wrote off
$1.4 million, $0 and $0 of costs associated with
unsuccessful negotiations related to acquisition opportunities
for the fiscal years ended December 30, 2007,
December 31, 2006, and January 1, 2006, respectively,
which is included in General and Administrative expenses in the
accompanying consolidated statements of income.
Property
and Equipment
Property and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated
depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line
method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets.
Buildings and improvements are depreciated over 2 to
40 years. Equipment and furniture and fixtures are
depreciated over 3 to 10 years. Accelerated methods of
depreciation are generally used for income tax purposes.
Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis
over the shorter of the useful life of the improvement or the
term of the lease. The Company performs ongoing evaluations of
the estimated useful lives of the property and equipment for
depreciation purposes. The estimated useful lives are determined
and continually evaluated based on the period over which
services are expected to be rendered by the asset. Maintenance
and repairs are expensed as incurred. Interest is capitalized in
connection with the construction of correctional and detention
facilities. Capitalized interest is recorded as part of the
asset to which it relates and is amortized over the assets
estimated useful life. During fiscal years ended 2007 and 2006,
the Company capitalized $1.2 million and $0.2 million
of interest cost, respectively.
Assets
Held Under Capital Leases
Assets held under capital leases are recorded at the lower of
the net present value of the minimum lease payments or the fair
value of the leased asset at the inception of the lease.
Amortization expense is recognized using the straight-line
method over the shorter of the estimated useful life of the
asset or the term of the related lease and is included in
depreciation expense.
Long-Lived
Assets
The Company reviews long-lived assets to be held and used and
amortizable intangible assets for impairment whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of
such assets may not be fully recoverable. Determination of
recoverability is based on an estimate of undiscounted future
cash flows resulting from the use of the asset and its eventual
disposition. Measurement of an impairment loss for long-lived
assets that management expects to hold and use is based on the
fair value of the asset. Long-lived assets to be disposed of are
reported at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less
costs to sell. Events that would trigger an impairment
assessment include deterioration of profits for a business
segment that has long-lived assets, or when other changes occur
which might impair recovery of long-lived assets. In 2005, the
Company recorded an impairment charge of $20.9 million
related to the cancellation of its contract for the Michigan
Correctional Facility (Michigan) which is included
in operating expenses in the accompanying consolidated statement
of income for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2006. There
have been no other impairment charges recorded on the asset. The
book value of the Michigan Facility at December 30, 2007 is
$12.3 million.
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets
Acquired intangible assets are separately recognized if the
benefit of the intangible asset is obtained through contractual
or other legal rights, or if the intangible asset can be sold,
transferred, licensed, rented or exchanged, regardless of the
Companys intent to do so. The Companys intangible
assets recorded in connection with the acquisition of
Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), have finite
lives ranging from 4-17 years and are amortized using a
straight-line method. The Company reviews finite-lived
intangible assets
74
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
for impairment whenever an event occurs or circumstances change
which indicate that the carrying amount of such assets may not
be fully recoverable.
With the adoption of Financial Accounting Standard
(FAS) No. 142, the Companys goodwill is
no longer amortized, but is subject to an annual impairment
test. There was no impairment of goodwill associated with CSC or
the Companys Australian subsidiary as a result of the
annual impairment tests completed as of the beginning of the
fourth quarters of 2007 and 2006. The annual impairment test for
the goodwill related to the acquisition of RSI was performed in
the fourth quarter of 2007 and no impairments were recognized as
a result. See Note 9.
Variable
Interest Entities
The Company has determined its 50% owned South African joint
venture in South African Custodial Services Pty. Limited, which
the Company refers to as SACS, is a variable interest entity
(VIE) in accordance with Financial Interpretation
No. 46 Revised, Consolidation of Variable Interest
Entities, (FIN 46R) which addressed
consolidation by a business of variable interest entities in
which it is the primary beneficiary. The Company determined that
it is not the primary beneficiary of SACS and as a result it is
not required to consolidate SACS under FIN 46R. The Company
accounts for SACS as an equity affiliate. SACS was established
in 2001, to design, finance and build the Kutama Sinthumule
Correctional Center. Subsequently, SACS was awarded a
25 year contract to design, construct, manage and finance a
facility in Louis Trichardt, South Africa. SACS, based on the
terms of the contract with the government, was able to obtain
long-term financing to build the prison. The financing is fully
guaranteed by the government, except in the event of default,
for which it provides an 80% guarantee. Separately, SACS entered
into a long-term operating contract with South African Custodial
Management (Pty) Limited (SACM) to provide security
and other management services and with SACS joint venture
partner to provide purchasing, programs and maintenance services
upon completion of the construction phase, which concluded in
February 2002. The Companys maximum exposure for loss
under this contract is $16.6 million, which represents the
Companys initial investment and the guarantees discussed
in Note 11.
Revenue
Recognition
In accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB)
No. 101, Revenue Recognition in Financial
Statements, as amended by SAB No. 104,
Revenue Recognition, and related interpretations,
facility management revenues are recognized as services are
provided under facility management contracts with approved
government appropriations based on a net rate per day per inmate
or on a fixed monthly rate. Certain of the Companys
contracts have provisions upon which a portion of the revenue is
based on its performance of certain targets, as defined in the
specific contract. In these cases, the Company recognizes
revenue when the amounts are fixed and determinable and the time
period over which the conditions have been satisfied has lapsed.
In many instances, the Company is party to more than one
contract with a single entity. In these instances, each contract
is accounted for separately.
Project development and design revenues are recognized as earned
on a percentage of completion basis measured by the percentage
of costs incurred to date as compared to estimated total cost
for each contract. This method is used because the Company
considers costs incurred to date to be the best available
measure of progress on these contracts. Provisions for estimated
losses on uncompleted contracts and changes to cost estimates
are made in the period in which the Company determines that such
losses and changes are probable. Typically, the Company enters
into fixed price contracts and does not perform additional work
unless approved change orders are in place. Costs attributable
to unapproved change orders are expensed in the period in which
the costs are incurred if the Company believes that it is not
probable that the costs will be recovered through a change in
the contract price. If the Company believes that it is probable
that the costs will be recovered through a change in contract
price, costs related to unapproved change orders are expensed in
the period in
75
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
which they are incurred, and contract revenue is recognized to
the extent of the costs incurred. Revenue in excess of the costs
attributable to unapproved change orders is not recognized until
the change order is approved. Contract costs include all direct
material and labor costs and those indirect costs related to
contract performance. Changes in job performance, job
conditions, and estimated profitability, including those arising
from contract penalty provisions, and final contract
settlements, may result in revisions to estimated costs and
income, and are recognized in the period in which the revisions
are determined. When evaluating multiple element arrangements,
the Company follows the provisions of Emerging Issues Task Force
(EITF) Issue
00-21,
Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables
(EITF 00-21).
EITF 00-21
provides guidance on determining if separate contracts should be
evaluated as a single arrangement and if an arrangement involves
a single unit of accounting or separate units of accounting and
if the arrangement is determined to have separate units, how to
allocate amounts received in the arrangement for revenue
recognition purposes.
In instances where the Company provides project development
services and subsequent management services, the amount of the
consideration from an arrangement is allocated to the delivered
element based on the residual method and the elements are
recognized as revenue when revenue recognition criteria for each
element is met. The fair value of the undelivered elements of an
arrangement is based on specific objective evidence.
We extend credit to the governmental agencies we contract with
and other parties in the normal course of business as a result
of billing and receiving payment for services thirty to sixty
days in arrears. Further, we regularly review outstanding
receivables, and provide estimated losses through an allowance
for doubtful accounts. In evaluating the level of established
loss reserves, we make judgments regarding our customers
ability to make required payments, economic events and other
factors. As the financial condition of these parties change,
circumstances develop or additional information becomes
available, adjustments to the allowance for doubtful accounts
may be required. We also perform ongoing credit evaluations of
our customers financial condition and generally do not
require collateral. We maintain reserves for potential credit
losses, and such losses traditionally have been within our
expectations.
Lease
Revenue
In connection with the CPT acquisition in January 2007, the
Company took ownership of two facilities that had existing
leases with unrelated third parties. As a result of the
ownership in these two leased facilities, the Company acts as
the lessor relative to these two properties. The first lease has
an initial term which expires in July 2013 with an option to
terminate in July 2010. The second lease has a term of ten years
and expires in May 2013. Both of these leases have options to
extend for up to three additional five year terms. Rental income
received on these leases for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2007 was $4.0 million and the carrying
value of these assets included in property and equipment at
December 30, 2007 was $41.4 million, net of
accumulated depreciation of $1.1 million.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Annual Rental
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
4,354
|
|
2009
|
|
|
4,434
|
|
2010
|
|
|
3,804
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2,892
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2,978
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
1,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
19,693
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Deferred
Revenue
Deferred revenue as of December 31, 2006 primarily
represented the unamortized net gain on development of
properties and was accounted for as a sale and leaseback of
properties by the Company to CPT. Previously, the Company leased
these properties from CPT under operating leases and deferred
the related gain. The unamortized deferred revenue was
recognized as a reduction of the net assets acquired in the
business combination with CPT. The balance as of
December 30, 2007 was $0.
Income
Taxes
The Company accounts for income taxes in accordance with
FAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes
(FAS 109) as clarified by FASB Interpretation
No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes
(FIN 48). Under this method, deferred income
taxes are determined based on the estimated future tax effects
of differences between the financial statement and tax basis of
assets and liabilities given the provisions of enacted tax laws.
Deferred income tax provisions and benefits are based on changes
to the assets or liabilities from year to year. In providing for
deferred taxes, the Company considers tax regulations of the
jurisdictions in which it operates, estimates of future taxable
income and available tax planning strategies. If tax
regulations, operating results or the ability to implement
tax-planning strategies varies, adjustments to the carrying
value of the deferred tax assets and liabilities may be
required. Valuation allowances are based on the more
likely than not criteria of FAS 109.
FIN 48 requires that the Company recognize the financial
statement benefit of a tax position only after determining that
the relevant tax authority would more likely than not sustain
the position following an audit. For tax positions meeting the
more-likely-than-not threshold, the amount recognized in the
financial statements is the largest benefit that has a greater
than 50 percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate
settlement with the relevant tax authority.
Earnings
Per Share
Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net income by
the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding. The
calculation of diluted earnings per share is similar to that of
basic earnings per share, except that the denominator includes
dilutive common share equivalents such as share options and
restricted shares.
On May 1, 2007, the Companys Board of Directors
declared a two-for-one stock split of the Companys common
stock. The stock split took effect on June 1, 2007 with
respect to stockholders of record on May 15, 2007.
Following the stock split, the Companys shares outstanding
increased from 25.4 million to 50.8 million. All share
and per share data has been adjusted to reflect these stock
splits.
Direct
Finance Leases
The Company accounts for the portion of its contracts with
certain governmental agencies that represent capitalized lease
payments on buildings and equipment as investments in direct
finance leases. Accordingly, the minimum lease payments to be
received over the term of the leases less unearned income are
capitalized as the Companys investments in the leases.
Unearned income is recognized as income over the term of the
leases using the effective interest method.
Reserves
for Insurance Losses
The nature of the Companys business exposes it to various
types of third-party legal claims, including, but not limited
to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, m