STATEMENT
OF
ALEX FRIEDMANN
ASSOCIATE EDITOR, PRISON LEGAL NEWS
AND
VICE PRESIDENT, PRIVATE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTE

BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY

REGARDING

H.R. 1889
(Private Prison Information Act of 2007)

PRESENTED ON
June 26, 2008

Statement of Alex Friedmann
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for providing me this opportunity to testify concerning H.R. 1889, the Private Prison
Information Act. I hope that my comments, this statement and the attached exhibits will prove
helpful when considering this important and much-needed legislation.

I am the associate editor for Prison Legal News (PLN) – a non-profit monthly publication that
reports on corrections and criminal justice-related issues. PLN has been publishing since 1990 and
has extensively covered the private prison industry. I also serve in a voluntary capacity as vice
president of the Private Corrections Institute (PCI) – a non-profit citizen watchdog agency that
opposes prison privatization and maintains a clearinghouse of news reports and other documents
related to private prison companies.

H.R. 1889 is fairly straightforward. This bill would require privately-operated prisons and other
correctional facilities that hold federal prisoners under contract with a federal agency to comply
with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the same extent as the federal agency itself.
Private prison firms would be required to do no more than what federal agencies already do.

The need for H.R. 1889 is three-fold. First, it is good public policy and safeguards the interests of
taxpayers, since private prison contracts with federal agencies involve the use of taxpayer funds.

Second, H.R. 1889 is necessary because private prison companies have repeatedly demonstrated
that absent a statutory requirement to do so, they will not provide the public and the media with
2

information that otherwise would be obtainable from government agencies under FOIA and state
public records laws. Indeed, in some cases for-profit private prison companies have attempted to
conceal information from contracting government agencies and, thus, from the public.

Third, H.R. 1889 is necessary as a matter of public safety. Transparency and accountability are
critical for monitoring prison and jail operations, both public and private. Such transparency and
accountability are already available in the public sector through FOIA, which provides oversight
by means of public access to public records. Under current law there is no comparable means of
ensuring transparency and public accountability for privately-operated prisons.

H.R. 1889 is Necessary as Good Public Policy
In 2002, in a case which extended Tennessee’s public records statute to private contractors that
provide functionally equivalent government services, the Tennessee Supreme Court said, “[T]he
public’s fundamental right to scrutinize the performance of public services and the expenditure of
public funds should not be subverted by government or by private entity merely because public
duties have been delegated to an independent contactor.”

Federal agencies that house prisoners or detainees, including the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), U.S.
Marshals Service, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), already are subject to the
Freedom of Information Act. They are public agencies, incarcerate prisoners as a public function
to ensure public safety, and are held publicly accountable through FOIA. Any citizen can obtain
information about federal prisons or detention facilities by submitting FOIA requests – as can
journalists and other members of the media who thereby inform and educate the public.

3

However, when the operation of correctional facilities is contracted to private-sector companies
such as Corrections Corp. of America (CCA) or GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut Corrections),
under current law the private contractors do not have to comply with FOIA requests and are not
similarly accountable to the public. By contracting out the management of facilities that house
federal prisoners, federal agencies are contracting away the public’s right to obtain information
about the operations of those facilities through FOIA requests. Thus, members of the public and
the media are unable to obtain the same information from privately-run prisons that they can
obtain from government-operated correctional facilities.

To the extent private prison companies claim H.R. 1889 is unnecessary because they already
provide reports and records to government agencies pursuant to their contracts, that reasoning
rings hollow. Private contractors are only obligated to provide reports and records as required
by their contract, and nothing more. This excludes a wide range of documents that are available
from federal agencies, which are required to comply with FOIA, but not available from CCA or
other private prison companies. Contracts between private companies and the BOP, ICE and
U.S. Marshals are not written with FOIA in mind; they are written with prison and jail security
operations in mind. To my knowledge, no federal contract requires a private prison contractor
to comply with FOIA to the same extent as the contracting government agency. Absent a law
such as H.R. 1889, private prison contractors do not have to respond to FOIA requests.

As a result, records related to misconduct by private prison employees (e.g., crimes or disciplinary
violations), employee-to-prisoner ratios, internal policies, the type of training that private prison
employees receive, staff turnover rates, etc., are not obtainable from the contracting government
agency if private prison companies are not required to disclose such information pursuant to their
4

contracts. A contract between a federal agency and a for-profit private prison company should not
serve as the gatekeeper for, or inhibit access to, records that can be obtained by members of the
taxpaying public who foot the bill for the government’s private prison contracts.

I will provide an illustrative example. In April 2008, I sent public records requests to a number of
public agencies that contract with CCA, requesting specific data including the number of inmateon-inmate assaults, inmate-on-employee assaults and use of force incidents. I also requested data
concerning CCA employees who had been charged with criminal offenses.

Despite contracting with CCA, several jurisdictions stated they could not provide the requested
records or data. The Board of Commissioners for Citrus County, Florida provided the number of
disciplinary reports but said, “All other information is not received or maintained by this office.”
The Tallahatchie County Sheriff’s Office stated, “I do not have anything ref: to what you are
asking for in my office. CCA takes care of their own business.” The Hamilton County Dept. of
Corrections replied, “No such records are maintained in this office for the dates you request.”

In several cases it was suggested that I obtain the requested information from CCA; however, as
noted below, CCA is not responsive to public records requests. Thus, in these examples, data that
would be obtainable from government-run prisons was not obtainable from public agencies that
contract with private prison companies, even though they presumably monitor their private prison
contracts. This indicates that merely because CCA or other private prison firms provide some data
to contracting government agencies, they clearly do not provide all the data that would be publicly
available from government-operated correctional facilities.

5

As stated in “Watch Your Assets,” Feb. 6, 2008 (a joint project by Texans for Public Justice and
Grassroots Leadership), “In response to requests for records under the Texas Public Information
Act, however, the [Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice] acknowledged that it does not collect basic
statistics about private facilities, numbers that it routinely gathers for facilities that it operates
itself. TDCJ officials say that its inspectors monitor some employment information during site
visits but the agency could not provide staffing numbers for its private facilities. The requested
data that the agency did not provide were records on the number of guards each facility employs,
the guard-to-prisoner ratio, guard disciplinary data, and enrollment in drug-treatment programs.”

H.R. 1889 is Necessary Because Private Prison Companies Fail to Comply
with Existing Public Records Laws and FOIA Requests
On April 3, 2007, I submitted a public records request to CCA under Tennessee’s public records
statute. Five years previously, Tennessee’s Supreme Court, in Memphis Publishing Company vs.
Cherokee Children and Family Services, held that “private entities which perform ‘contracted out’
governmental services” that are functionally equivalent to those performed by public agencies are
subject to Tennessee’s public records law.

Despite the fact that CCA, which operates prisons and jails, unquestionably performs functionally
equivalent public services, the company refused to comply with PLN’s records request. CCA’s
attorney argued that Tennessee’s public records law did not apply to the company. Consequently,
on May 19, 2008, PLN filed suit against CCA for failure to comply with the state’s public records
law as interpreted by the Tennessee Supreme Court’s prior ruling. I am the plaintiff in that case,
Friedmann v. CCA, Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tenn., Case No. 08-1105-I. This suit
would not have been necessary but for CCA’s denial of PLN’s public records request, in which
6

we requested documents that would have been obtainable from public agencies under Tennessee’s
public records act (e.g., complaints, verdicts and settlements in legal actions; reports, audits and
investigations in which CCA was found to have violated its contractual obligations; and copies of
the contracts entered into between CCA and Tennessee public agencies). A copy of CCA’s letter
denying PLN’s public records request is attached as Exhibit 1.

Previously, in December 2005, PLN sued the GEO Group – the nation’s second largest private
prison firm – for failing to fully respond to records requests under Florida’s public records statute.
Although GEO produced a limited number of the requested records, it ignored other requests and
did not respond to a second records request. While that litigation is ongoing, GEO has agreed to
produce the requested records – but only after PLN filed suit. Further, during the litigation GEO
failed to comply with requests for discovery, requiring PLN’s attorney to file multiple motions to
compel, which were granted by the court. The case is PLN v. The Geo Group, Inc., 15th Judicial
Circuit of Florida, Civil Division, Case No. 50 2005 CA 011195 AA.

Additionally, in 2004 and 2007 the Private Corrections Institute (PCI) submitted public records
requests to CCA under Florida law, seeking an after-action report related to a hostage-taking and
shooting at the CCA-operated Bay County Jail. CCA declined to produce the requested report,
citing attorney-client privilege. Notably, the reports prepared by Bay County officials and by the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, concerning the exact same incident at the Bay County
Jail, are public records that are made publicly available. A copy of the Oct. 19, 2007 letter from
CCA’s attorney denying PCI’s public records request is attached as Exhibit 2.

7

The above examples relate to state public records laws, not to federal FOIA requests. However, to
the extent that private prison firms have refused to comply with state public records statutes, there
is no reason to believe they would voluntarily comply with FOIA requests.

To test this theory, on May 8, 2008, PLN’s editor, Paul Wright, sent a FOIA request to Mr. Cole
Carter, CCA’s Assistant General Counsel at the company’s corporate office. Our FOIA request
asked for the total number of FOIA requests filed with CCA since 2006, in addition to CCA’s
responses to the last 20 FOIA requests received. We also requested specific information related to
CCA facilities that house federal prisoners – including the number of inmate-on-inmate assaults,
inmate-on-staff-assaults, use of force incidents, etc. A copy of our FOIA request is attached as
Exhibit 3. FOIA allows for 20 business days to respond to a records request; however, as of June
20 – thirty-one business days after our request was submitted – CCA had not replied. Mr. Wright
has placed five phone calls to CCA to check on the status of our FOIA request and left messages
each time. He has received no response from Mr. Carter or any other CCA official.

It is apparent that CCA is unwilling to voluntarily respond to FOIA requests, just as the company
does not comply with requests submitted under state public records laws. Thus the need for H.R.
1889, to ensure that private prison companies are held accountable to the public through FOIA to
the same extent as the federal agencies they contract with. Additional recent examples of private
prison firms failing to provide information to the public and to journalists are included in Exhibit
4, which was compiled by the Private Corrections Institute and includes reports from the Public
Broadcasting Service, The New Yorker and the New York Times, among others.

8

Ironically, prisoners held in privately-operated facilities have access to internal prison policies
while members of the public do not. Consider that earlier this year, a prisoner at the CCA-run
Saguaro facility in Arizona contacted Prison Legal News and informed us that CCA staff were
not allowing prisoners to receive books ordered from PLN. I called the facility, left a message,
and received a return call on April 7, 2008 from Traci Thompson, who identified herself as the
Warden’s secretary. I requested a copy of CCA’s policy governing the receipt of reading material
by prisoners; however, I was told I could not receive a copy of the policy because it was for “inhouse” use only. See Exhibit 5, an affidavit I wrote at the time. While prisoners have access to
internal CCA policies, as a member of the media I was denied access to those same policies. That
would not happen at a government-run prison, where such policies are public documents.

Indeed, CCA has been very creative in keeping internal documents out of the public’s hands. For
example see Exhibit 6, an incident report from CCA’s North Fork Correctional Facility in Sayre,
Oklahoma involving the use of chemical agents and a “T-160 Flameless Expulsion grenade.” This
report is labeled “Proprietary Information – Not for Distribution – Copyrighted.” No comparable
report from a government agency would be designated “proprietary” or “copyrighted.”

H.R. 1889 is Necessary as a Matter of Public Safety
As noted above, in April 2008 I sent public records requests to a number of public agencies that
contract with CCA, in which I requested information about CCA employees who were charged
with crimes. Many of the government agencies I contacted said they maintained no such records.
The fact that many jurisdictions were unable to provide any data regarding CCA employees who
had been arrested for criminal offenses is troubling. The Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety and

9

Corrections stated, “With regard to your request for information relative to CCA employees being
charged with criminal offenses, this office has no information regarding that issue.” According
to news reports and other data, I am personally aware of at least 85 CCA employees who were
charged with crimes over the past five years – yet in many cases the contracting public agencies
were unable to provide information about arrests of private prison employees.

Certainly, prison staff who engage in criminal conduct – such as contraband smuggling – have an
impact on public safety. Information related to federal prison employees who engage in criminal
acts can be obtained through FOIA; however, private prison contractors are under no obligation to
make public similar information about their own employees charged with crimes. As stated above,
in many cases such information is not even known to contracting government agencies. If enacted,
H.R. 1889 would require private prison companies to disclose criminal conduct by their employees
to the same extent as federal agencies, by making them subject to FOIA requests.

Further, consider that in some cases private prison companies deliberately withhold information
from government agencies. One documented example involves a May 16, 2007 incident at the
CCA-operated Hardeman County prison in Tennessee, when CCA warden Glen Turner assaulted
a prisoner. Despite a state monitor being present at the facility, the incident was not reported by
CCA nor discovered by the monitor. The Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) was only
informed two months later, in July, by the prisoner’s attorney. The TDOC’s Director of Internal
Affairs stated in an e-mail that the incident involving Warden Turner “was never reported at the
facility,” and said it was only after the TDOC was notified by the prisoner’s lawyer “that anyone
at the facility began to acknowledge the excessive use of force by Warden Turner.” A subsequent
investigation verified that the incident did occur; Warden Turner resigned, was prosecuted and
10

pleaded guilty in September 2007. There is no question that CCA staff had tried to cover-up this
abusive incident; information about Warden Turner’s excessive use of force had to be obtained
from state officials through a public records request, not from CCA.

Public safety concerns are also implicated when private prison companies do not provide accurate
information about security-related incidents such as escapes and riots. On March 13, 2008, TIME
magazine published an article concerning a former CCA employee-turned-whistleblower, Ronald
T. Jones, who had been employed as a senior manager in the company’s internal quality assurance
division. Mr. Jones alleged that under the direction of CCA’s vice president and general counsel,
Gustavus A. Puryear, the company maintained two sets of quality assurance reports. The reports
provided to contracting government agencies reportedly did not contain all of the information in
CCA’s in-house reports, which were labeled “attorney-client privileged” and not for distribution
outside the company. A copy of the TIME article is attached as Exhibit 7. The quality assurance
reports referred to by Mr. Jones include “zero tolerance” events such as riots, escapes, hostage
situations, unnatural deaths and sexual assaults at CCA facilities.

One example of such an internal CCA quality assurance report, which is labeled “an attorneyclient privileged communication ... not to be released to anyone without the expressed written
approval of the Office of General Counsel,” is attached as Exhibit 8. Such internal documents,
which contain information about security-related events that impact public safety, are not made
available to members of the public – nor, apparently, to contracting government agencies.

Although CCA has disputed Mr. Jones’ allegations, the attempted cover-up at CCA’s Hardeman
County facility involving Warden Turner, the internal CCA quality assurance report designated
11

“attorney-client privileged” attached as Exhibit 8, internal CCA incident reports that are labeled
“proprietary” and “copyrighted” as shown in Exhibit 6, and CCA’s refusal to provide a copy of
an internal policy as described in Exhibit 5, cast substantial doubt on the company’s claim that it
does not withhold information from contracting government agencies or the public.

Conclusion
Perhaps most obviously, if CCA and other private prison contractors allege that H.R. 1889 is not
necessary because they already produce reports and information to federal agencies, or otherwise
comply with FOIA requests, then what is the harm of this legislation and why are they lobbying
against it? If they have nothing to hide they should have no objections. There is no downside to
H.R. 1889; it would simply require private prison companies that contract with federal agencies to
respond to FOIA requests to the same extent as the federal agencies themselves. Existing FOIA
exemptions that safeguard personal information and privacy concerns would still apply.

In addition to my experience with Prison Legal News and the Private Corrections Institute, I am
also a former prisoner. From 1992 to 1998 I was incarcerated at the CCA-operated South Central
Correctional Facility in Tennessee; I therefore have personal knowledge and empirical experience
in regard to how CCA operates. During my incarceration I was privy to internal CCA documents
that contained information not for public disclosure, and was aware of misconduct by CCA staff
that had an adverse impact on public safety. Absent any statutory requirement to publicly disclose
such information, the public, the media and government agencies that contract with CCA would
never know about many of the problems at the company’s privately-operated prisons.

12

The bottom line is that if the private prison industry already provided members of the public with
the same information that can be obtained from federal correctional facilities, H.R. 1889 would
not be needed. However, because private prison companies have repeatedly demonstrated they are
unwilling to respond to FOIA and public records requests, this legislation is necessary.

H.R. 1889 is good public policy that will increase accountability and transparency at privately-run
facilities that house federal prisoners by making them subject to FOIA requests, and thereby will
improve public safety and preserve the public’s right to know how their tax dollars are spent.

NOTE: None of the CCA-related documents attached as exhibits to this statement were obtained
from CCA; all were obtained through other sources, as CCA has denied my records requests.

13

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

PRISON LEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420, West Brattleboro, VT 05303— 802-257-1342
www.prisonlegalnews.org

May 8, 2008

pwright@prisonlegalnews.org

SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

Corrections Corp. of America
Attn: Mr. Cole Carter
Assist. General Counsel, Operations
10 Burton Hills Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37215

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552
Dear Mr. Carter:
I am submitting the following request on behalf of Prison Legal News (PLN), pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for records and documents maintained by
CCA, as set forth in the following specific requests:
1.
The total number of FOIA requests received by CCA during calendar years 2006 and
2007, and to the date of this request for calendar year 2008.
2.
Copies of the last twenty (20) FOIA requests received by CCA, and copies of the full
responses or answers from CCA to said last twenty (20) FOIA requests.
3.
The following requests apply only to the CCA facilities listed below which house federal
prisoners; if any of these facilities do not house federal prisoners, please exclude those facilities
from the following requests:
California City Corr. Center
Central Arizona Detention Facility
Eden Detention Center
Elizabeth Detention Center
Eloy Detention Center
Houston Processing Center

Laredo Processing Center
McRae Correctional Center
Northeast Ohio Corr. Center
San Diego Corr. Facility
T. Don Hutto Residential Center
Leavenworth Detention Center

Mr. Cole Carter
May 8, 2008
Page 2

A.
The Safety and Control Report (or comparable document) for the time period of
Oct. 5 to Oct. 12, 2006 for the above-listed facilities, including the aggregate number of year-todate occurrences (from Jan. 1, 2006 to Oct. 12, 2006) for the following categories:
Safety – All Categories
Inmate on inmate assault with and without weapons
Inmate on employee assault with and without weapons
Discovery of weapons – manufactured and homemade
Use of force – with/without chemical and inflammatory agents
Discovery of alcohol and controlled substances
Inmate grievances
Inmate positive drug tests
Total disciplinary reports – Major and minor
B.
The corresponding Data Worksheets with the source data used to compile the
information included in the Safety and Control Report described in request no. 3A. Please note
that data for all other CCA facilities except for those facilities referenced above can be redacted
from the requested Safety and Control Report and corresponding Data Worksheets.
C.
The Operations Indicators reports / spreadsheets (or comparable documents) for
the above-listed facilities, for the time period covering the first two weeks in October 2006.
I request that all of the requested records be provided in electronic format. As PLN is a media
publication and the requested records will be used for the benefit of the public through our noncommercial news reporting, I request a waiver of fees (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii)). A federal
court has already determined that PLN is entitled to a fee waiver under FOIA; see PLN v. Lapin,
436 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C 2006). I further request an expedited review of this FOIA request as I
am a journalist who is primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public, there is a
compelling need for the timely production of the requested records in order to report on current
events and news related to CCA, and because the requested records will contribute significantly
to public understanding of government operations and activities.
Please note that above FOIA requests are severable, and in the event that CCA objects to any of
these requests, I request responses to the remaining requests and the specific statutory exemption
that you claim justifies your objection to produce any of the requested documents. Please provide
a response to this request within twenty (20) working days, as provided by FOIA. Please contact
me should you need any additional information. Thank you for your time and attention;
Sincerely,
/s/
Paul Wright, Editor PLN

EXHIBIT 4

Private Corrections Institute, Inc.
Support H.R. 1889, Private Prison Information Act
H.R. 1889 is a good government bill. This bill requires “prisons or other correctional facilities holding Federal
prisoners under contract with the Federal Government to make the same information available to the public that
Federal prisons and correctional facilities are required to do by law.”
Very simple and fair. Why is this legislation needed?
Currently, private prison companies under contract with the federal government are not subject to Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests. For example:
•

On May 9, 2008, the Public Broadcasting Service show NOW aired a program, “Prisons for Profit.”
Here’s what one of the reporters, Maria Hinojosa, had to say about access to private prison records:
“As a journalist, my job is to ‘tell the untold story,’ but visiting a prison – especially a private prison
– is especially challenging. I couldn't find out how many drug offenders or other prisoners at Crowley
[a CCA-operated prison] end up back behind bars because nobody is keeping track. And I couldn't
find out if the numbers of assaults in this prison had gone up or down since the riot, because those
records are not available to the public. These kind of statistics are treated as privileged information by
private prison companies. If knowledge is power, a journalist, and by extension the public, is at a
disadvantage when it comes to the corporate corrections industry.”

•

When PCI submitted a FOIA to Corrections Corporation of America for records at their San Diego
Correctional Facility, the warden sent PCI a letter saying that CCA was not the proper authority for
the information. The warden wrote that “We take no position on whether these records are subject
to release at this time, but acknowledge that a large amount of contractor submitted information is
subject to FOIA based on the statute and the Department’s regulations.” CCA produced no records.

•

It was reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune on May 4, 2008 (“Immigration agency, contractors
accused of mistreating detainees”) that the ACLU could not determine if CCA had a financial interest
in keeping detainees from having access to medical treatment because “the public cannot obtain
government contract information from private companies.”

•

Two investigative journalists who put together a webpage on CCA and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (www.businessofdetention.com) had this to say: “We FOIA’d a list of CCA contracts
with ICE and the US Marshals Service, and found them to be of minimal use when the financial
amounts on the documents were redacted, as were the contracts shared with us by TRAC from a
similar FOIA.” Why can't members of the public learn how much of their taxpayer money is being
spent on private prison contracts?

Dee Hubbard
President

Alex Friedmann
Vice President

Stephen Raher
Secretary/Treasurer

Deb Phillips
Director

1114 Brandt Drive - Tallahassee, FL 32308
850-980-0887 - www.PrivateCI.org

Ken Kopczynski
Executive Director

•

In “The Lost Children” (The New Yorker, March 3, 2008), author Margaret Talbot wrote that getting
information about a CCA detention facility, “especially from the people who run it – is hard. Private
prison companies are not subject to the same legal requirements as public prisons to provide incident
reports on assaults, escapes, deaths, or rapes.” Ms. Talbot then reports on one incident where Ms.
Judy Greene, a criminal justice researcher, tried to obtain information about the for-profit’s use of
force authority. “In a Freedom of Information Act request, Greene asked for documents that might
shed light on this question. Eventually, she recalls, she heard from the Bureau of Prisons that it was
prepared to give her the information but had to get permission from CCA; a second letter informed
her that CCA had said no, claiming that the information she sought about the use of force was a
"business secret." Use of force authority for federal prisoners is a “business secret”?

•

On March 13, 2008, Time magazine reported that Ronald Thomas Jones, a former high-ranking CCA
quality assurance employee, had gone public with accusations that CCA maintains two sets of internal
quality assurance reports. Mr. Jones described how damaging reports containing information from
CCA prisons and jails were stamped “attorney client privilege” for in-house use only, to make it
difficult, if not impossible, for the public to find out what is going on in CCA's prisons and jails.

•

On May 5, 2008 the New York Times (“Few Details on Immigrants Who Died in U.S. Custody”)
reported that details related to deaths at ICE facilities were hard to come by. Reporter Nina Bernstein
related how it took Congress to demand information about the deaths to get such information. The
Times FOIA’d ICE to get a list of deaths but found that the “list had few details, and they are often
unreliable.” Ms. Bernstein’s exposé focuses on the death at CCA’s Elizabeth Detention Center in
New Jersey of Boubacar Bah, a Guinean who had overstayed his visa. She writes that “Mr. Bah’s
relatives never saw the internal records labeled ‘proprietary information – not for distribution’ by
Corrections Corporation of America.” Mr. Bah died “in a sequestered system where questions about
what had happened to him, or even his whereabouts were met with silence.” Why? “Four days after
the fall, tipped off by a detainee who called Mr. Bah’s roommate in Brooklyn, relatives rushed to the
detention center to ask Corrections Corporation employees where he was. ‘They wouldn’t give us any
information,’ said Lamine Dieng, an American citizen who teaches at Bronx Community College and
is married to Mr. Bah’s cousin ...."

•

In another New York Times article the same day by Ms. Bernstein (“Family Struggled in Vain to Help
Suffering Detainee”), she recounts another example of CCA ignoring requests for information from
a detainee's relatives. The fours sons of Maya Nand, an illegal immigrant from Fiji, “kept calling the
[CCA Eloy Detention facility] to plead for medical attention, they said, but could only through to an
answering machine. They said they hired a lawyer to reach the warden, but nothing changed.”

Plainly and simply, private prison corporations are hiding behind the veil of corporate secrecy to keep the public
from finding out what is going on behind the walls of their facilities. It is obvious the current system of obtaining
information about these privately-operated prisons and jails is not working.
If Steven Owen, CCA’s Director of Marketing, is to be believed when he said “We’re one of the most transparent
industries out there” ( “Who Holds the Keys?”, Boise Weekly, September 12, 2007), then why is CCA lobbying to
defeat this legislation? If they have nothing to hide why do they voice such strong opposition to H.R. 1889? This
bill is needed to protect the interests of the public and to guarantee the public's right to know, in order to ensure
public accountability over the for-profit private prison industry.

Dee Hubbard
President

Alex Friedmann
Vice President

Stephen Raher
Secretary/Treasurer

Deb Phillips
Director

1114 Brandt Drive - Tallahassee, FL 32308
850-980-0887 - www.PrivateCI.org

Ken Kopczynski
Executive Director

EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 6

EXHIBIT 7

Time Magazine article – Published March 13, 2008

Scrutiny for a Bush Judicial Nominee
By Adam Zagorin/Washington
As the top lawyer for America's biggest private prison company, Corrections Corporation of
America (CCA), Gus Puryear IV, is known to sport well-pressed preppy pink shirts, and his
brownish mop of hair stands out among most of President Bush's graying nominees to the federal
bench. A favorite of G.O.P. hardliners, Puryear, 39, prepped Dick Cheney for the vice
presidential debates — both in 2000 and 2004 — and served as a senior aide to two former
senators and onetime presidential hopefuls, Bill Frist and Fred Thompson.
Political connections, though, may not be enough to get Puryear a lifetime post as a federal
district judge in Tennessee. Puryear recently confronted tough questions about his conduct,
experience and potential conflicts of interest from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, which must approve him before a full Senate vote. Now, a former CCA manager
tells TIME that Puryear oversaw a reporting system in which accounts of major, sometimes
violent prison disturbances and other significant events were often masked or minimized in
accounts provided to government agencies with oversight over prison contracts. Ronald T. Jones,
the former CCA manager, alleges that the company even began keeping two sets of books — one
for internal use that described prison deficiencies in telling detail, and a second set that Jones
describes as "doctored" for public consumption, to limit bad publicity, litigation or fines that
could derail CCA's multimillion dollar contracts with federal, state or local agencies.
CCA owns or operates 65 prisons, housing some 70,000 inmates across the U.S. According to
the company's website, it has a greater than 50% share of the booming private prison market.
CCA is also a major contributor to Republican candidates and causes, and spends millions of
dollars each year lobbying for government contracts. (Puryear enjoys a friendship with Cheney's
son-in-law, Philip Perry, who lobbied for CCA in Washington before serving as general counsel
for the Department of Homeland Security, which has millions of dollars in contracts with CCA,
from 2005 to 2007.) The company has likewise given financial support to tax-exempt policy
groups that support tough sentencing laws that help put more people behind bars. Like other
prison companies, CCA has faced numerous lawsuits that stem from allegedly inadequate staff
levels that can be a cause of high levels of violence in the prisons. Though hundreds of such
lawsuits are often pending at any given time, many brought by inmates in its own facilities, CCA
under Puryear has mounted an especially vigorous defense against them, refusing to settle all but
the most damaging.
Jones knows CCA intimately. Until last summer, the longtime Republican was in charge of
"quality assurance" records for CCA prisons across the U.S. He says that in 2005, after CCA
found itself embarrassed on several occasions by the public release of internal records to
government agencies, Puryear mandated that detailed, raw reports on prison shortcomings carry
a blanket assertion of "attorney client privilege," thus forbidding their release without his written
consent. From then on, Jones says, the audits delivered to agencies were filled with increasingly
vague performance measures. "If the wrong party found out that a facility's operations scored

low in an audit, then CCA could be subject to litigation, fines or worse," explains Jones. "When
Mr. Puryear felt there was highly sensitive or potentially damaging information to CCA, I would
then be directed to remove that information from an audit report." Puryear would not comment
on the allegations. Jones resigned from CCA last summer to pursue a legal career.
According to Jones, Puryear was most concerned about what CCA described as "zero tolerance"
events, or ZT's — including unnatural deaths, major disturbances, escapes and sexual assaults.
According to Jones, bonuses and job security at the company were tied to reporting low ZT
numbers. Low numbers also pleased CCA's government clients, as well as the company's board,
which received a regular tally, and Wall Street analysts concerned about potentially costly
lawsuits that CCA might face.
In 2006, for example, Jones says CCA had to lock down a prison in Texas to control rioting by
as many as 60 inmates. Despite clear internal guidelines defining the incident as a ZT, Jones says
he was ordered not to label it that way. Instead it was logged as, "Altered facility schedule due to
inmate action". And this was not unusual, says Jones: "Information was misrepresented in a very
disturbing way concerning the company's most important performance indicators, which
included escapes, suicides, violent outbreaks and sexual assaults."
Companies often try to show their best face to customers, and safeguard internal records with
"attorney-client privilege." But according to Stephen Gillers, a leading expert on legal ethics at
New York University, CCA's use of that privilege seems like "a wholesale, possibly
overreaching claim," similiar to the blanket assertions of major tobacco companies that tried to
keep damaging internal documents from public view. Those assertions of privilege have been
rejected by federal judges as an attempt to improperly conceal their internal data on the dangers
of smoking from customers, the courts and legal adversaries. CCA could also be in legal trouble
if it minimized the tally of serious prison incidents and, by implication, its possible financial
liability. As chief legal counsel, Puryear would have also had an obligation to ensure his board
had all the information it needed, good or bad, to make decisions. If Puryear's reporting system
had the effect of withholding information relevant to official prison oversight, that could bear on
his suitability as a federal judge by suggesting his "disdain for the proper operation of an
important function of government," notes Gillers.
Contacted by TIME, CCA says that Puryear, "has served the company well and honorably as
general counsel and will be an outstanding judge." The company denies allegations that it keeps
two sets of books, saying: "A final audit report is made available to our customers. Appropriate
information gathered in the audits is separately provided to our legal department." The company
adds that "CCA has produced all relevant, non-privileged documents in litigation," that its board
is regularly apprised of the most serious prison incidents, and that "all appropriate" information
is given to the financial community.
President Bush recently called Puryear and his 27 other judicial nominees facing Senate
confirmation "highly qualified." Whether or not the Senate agrees on Puryear, Bush is likely to
leave the White House with fewer judges approved than Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, both
two-term chief executives.

EXHIBIT 8

Quality Assurance Weekly Report
October 16, 2006

ZERO TOLERANCE – 2004 to 2006 Totals
2006
Zero Tolerance Events

2004

2005

8
8
6
5
1
28

4
5
11
2
1
23

Escapes
Disturbances/Disruptive Events
Unnatural Deaths
Sexual Assaults/Misconduct**
Hostage Situations
TOTALS

(As of 10/15/06)
4
3
6
2
0
15

*Data compiled from Operations Department Priority Incident Database, from Administrative Duty Officer Reports, from Health Services
Department mortality records, and from 5-1I Weekly Report of Facility Incidents forms.
**Data for sexual assaults in 2004 and 2005 only included inmate on inmate sexual assaults. Sexual assault data in 2006 includes
substantiated employee on inmate, inmate on employee, and inmate on inmate sexual assaults.
*** Data In the 2006 table reflect only validated zero tolerance items.

SIGNIFICANT FACILITY EVENTS - The incidents in this section were reported from
10/09/06 through 10/15/06.
WHITEVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY – Attempted suicide requiring outside medical
treatment
On 10/10/06, at approx. 1109 hours, an officer was cross counting in IA-pod when he got to cell 104 and
saw inmate Rhea, Joseph #271369 lying on his right side on the top bunk facing the wall. The officer
then observed 2 small spots of blood on the inmate’s shirt. When he approached the bunk he pulled
back the sheet and observed blood coming from the inmate's neck. The inmate was quickly treated by
facility staff and then transported to a local hospital for treatment.

BAY CO. JAIL – Attempted suicide requiring outside medical treatment
On 10/11/06, at approx. 1513 hours, inmate Terry Locklear #06-12498 attempted to hang himself in the
shower area of 5B by tying a sheet around his neck. Inmate Locklear was taken down by Inmates
Jeremy Riley #06-5523, Inmate Passion Williams #06-1310 and Inmate Davulun Williams #06-11670
while staff was entering the unit. Inmate Locklear regained consciouness and was seen by medical then
transported to Bay Medical Center with no significant injuries.

CENTRAL ARIZONA DETENTION CENTER – Attempted suicide requiring outside medical
treatment
On 10/12/06, at approx. 0643 hours, an officer found inmate Medrano, Manuel #81076008 lying on his
back on the floor with blood covering the inmate and floor. Senior Correctional Officer Rachel
Madoneczky and Case Manager Christina Frappiea entered the cell after observing a laceration to the
right side of the inmate’s neck, and began basic first aide by applying pressure to the right side of the
neck area of the inmate. The inmate was transported to a local hospital for treatment.
This document was prepared at the request of the Office of General Counsel. It is an attorney - client privileged communication. This
document is not to be released to anyone without the expressed written approval of the Office of General Counsel

1 of 4

Quality Assurance Weekly Report
October 16, 2006

EDEN DETENTION CENTER - Altered facility schedule due to inmate action
On 10/10/06, at approx. 0500 hours, Dorm F was released to Food Service under controlled movement
due to a scheduled Scabies screening in that unit. At approximately 0520, six inmates refused to return
to Dorm F and comply with the screening. Approximately 50-60 inmates gathered in the compound and
refused to return to Dorm F. After staff initiated confrontation avoidance, the inmates complied with
orders to return to Dorm F. However, the initial six inmates continued to refuse and were placed in
Special Housing. At approximately 0630, medical staff entered Dorm F to perform Scabies screenings.
The inmates refused to be screened. After further attempts at confrontation avoidance proved
unsuccessful, the Incident Management Team was initiated and the Disturbance Control Team was
activated. The facility was placed under an altered building schedule with controlled movement and
Dorm F was placed in lockdown status. On 10/11/06, at approximately 0330, the Food Service workers
refused to report to work. The facility was placed under lockdown with no inmate movement, requiring
the breakfast and noon meals to be provided in the form of sack lunches. At approximately 1320,
medical staff entered Dorm F and the inmates complied with the scabies screening. At approximately
1410, the afternoon kitchen workers were released form their units and reported to Food Service. Upon
the clearing of the 1530 count, the compound was opened with limited program activities. At
approximately 1900, the Disturbance Control Team was deactivated. On 10/12/06,, at approximately
0500, the facility resumed normal operations.

RED ROCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER – Loss of ammunition
On 10/07/06, at approximately 0610 hours, Shift Supervisors were informed by Day Shift C/O's that there
were only 8 rounds per perimeter vehicle - this is a loss of two 12 gauge double 00 buck rounds. Shift
Supervisors went out to perimeter and verified that there were only 8 rounds per vehicle. Both vehicles
were searched with no results. Upon assuming duties of Night Shift Perimeter, an officer accounted for 9
rounds per vehicle and reported no discrepancies. Staff attempted to contact Second Shift Supervisor
and both perimeter drivers to find out if there were any discrepancies or changes in the number of rounds
assigned to perimeter and were unable to make contact. There is an ongoing investigation of the
incident; all areas have been searched, to include perimeter and vehicles. We have reasonable belief
that one of two officers may have taken the rounds home by accident. The two missing rounds were
later found in a perimeter truck in a box.

Incident from previous report:
SILVERDALE FACILITIES – Employee on inmate sexual misconduct (Potential Zero
Tolerance event)
On 10/4/06, an investigation was initiated into allegations of sexual misconduct between a male
correctional officer and a female inmate at the facility. The female inmate claims she performed oral sex
and engaged in sexual intercourse with the officer in the laundry area on 10/01/06. The inmate also
claims to have taken possession of a quantity of tobacco following the sex act and later sold it in the
housing unit. An investigation could not substantiate the female inmate’s claim of sexual
misconduct by the officer.
This document was prepared at the request of the Office of General Counsel. It is an attorney - client privileged communication. This
document is not to be released to anyone without the expressed written approval of the Office of General Counsel

2 of 4

Quality Assurance Weekly Report
October 16, 2006

OPERATIONAL AUDITS
There were no audits scheduled last week. Audits are scheduled this week at the 1,600-bed Prairie
Correctional Facility and the 1,676-bed South Central Correctional Center. Audits for the week of
10/23/06 are scheduled to take place at the 1,092-bed Metro-Davidson Detention Facility and the 2,016bed Northeast Ohio Correctional Center.

INTERNAL/EXTERNAL AUDITS
FOOD SERVICE INCIDENT REPORTS:

In October to date, there has been one food service
incident report filed (at Winn Correctional Center) for menu non-compliance

From January – August 2006, there were 259 incident reports (41 in Jan., 36 in Feb., 42 in Mar., 46 in
Apr., 56 in May, 15 in June, 12 in July, 11 in August, and 3 in September) filed at facilities system-wide.

INMATE CONCERN CENTER HOTLINE
In October to date, there have been 4 calls to the hotline regarding 3 facilities. The facility with
the most calls was:
Correctional Treatment Facility with 2 calls. Calls concerned an attorney saying he could not see his
client, and a caller alleging an inmate is not getting funds sent to him.
From January-August 2006, 199 calls (30 in January, 28 in Feb., 38 in Mar., 23 in Apr., 38 in May, 25 in
June, 17 in July, 38 in August, and 43 in September) were made to the hotline in reference to alleged
issues/concerns in over 54 facilities.

This document was prepared at the request of the Office of General Counsel. It is an attorney - client privileged communication. This
document is not to be released to anyone without the expressed written approval of the Office of General Counsel

3 of 4

Quality Assurance Weekly Report
October 16, 2006
Calls to the Concern Center Hotline in 2006

Total Calls

60

40
38
20

30

28

38

38

43

25

23

17
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Month

This document was prepared at the request of the Office of General Counsel. It is an attorney - client privileged communication. This
document is not to be released to anyone without the expressed written approval of the Office of General Counsel

4 of 4