ICE Contract Analysis

Detailed comparison of the two major private contractors operating U.S. immigration detention facilities: GEO Group and CoreCivic. Analysis based on GAO reports, SEC filings, and TRAC data.

GEO Group

$2.3B

2023 Revenue

Boca Raton, Florida

CoreCivic

$1.9B

2023 Revenue

Brentwood, Tennessee

Category	GEO Group	CoreCivic
Headquarters	Boca Raton, Florida	Brentwood, Tennessee
Former Name	Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC)	Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)
Primary Services	Private prisons, ICE detention, electronic monitoring	Private prisons, ICE detention, halfway houses
Major ICE Facilities	• Northwest ICE Processing Center (WA) • South Texas ICE Processing Center (TX) • Moshannon Valley Processing Center (PA)	• Eloy Detention Center (AZ) • Otay Mesa Detention Center (CA) • Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility (MS)
Contract Type Focus	Uses guaranteed minimum bed contracts + fixed fees	Similar: ICE often pays per-bed minimums + service fees
Technology Integration	Yes – via BI Inc. subsidiary (ankle monitors, SmartLINK app)	Less involved in ATD tech, but operates some reentry centers
Legal Challenges	• Forced labor lawsuits • Medical neglect cases • Deaths in custody	• High detainee death rate at Eloy • Allegations of abuse and poor conditions

🚨 Contract Structure Analysis

ICE's contract structure systematically avoids federal accountability:

Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs): ICE contracts with local jails, which then subcontract to private companies
Guaranteed Minimums: Facilities receive payment even when beds are empty or facilities are non-compliant
Limited Oversight: Contract terms and performance metrics are often shielded from public scrutiny
Facility Operating Charges: Recent shift toward flexible payment structures that reduce federal liability

GEO Group Major Facilities

Northwest Detention Center (WA)
Capacity: 1,575 • Known for hunger strikes
South Texas ICE Processing Center (TX)
Capacity: 1,686 • Family detention focus
Moshannon Valley Processing Center (PA)
Capacity: 1,878 • Largest in region

Total GEO Group ICE capacity: 5,139+ beds

CoreCivic Major Facilities

Eloy Detention Center (AZ)
Capacity: 1,596 • High death rate documented
Otay Mesa Detention Center (CA)
Capacity: 1,180 • Border region facility
Tallahatchie County Correctional (MS)
Capacity: 2,672 • Mixed federal/ICE population

Total CoreCivic ICE capacity: 5,448+ beds

⚠️ Oversight & Accountability Gaps

Both companies have faced significant criticism from oversight bodies:

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Findings:

Inconsistent implementation of detention standards
Limited monitoring of contract compliance
Guaranteed minimum payments regardless of performance
Insufficient transparency in cost reporting

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG):

Documented safety and security deficiencies
Medical care inadequacies
Failure to meet PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) standards
Inadequate grievance procedures

📊 Data Sources & Research Methodology

This analysis is based on cross-referenced sources including:

GAO Report GAO-21-149: ICE's use of guaranteed minimums and facility operating charge payment structures
TRAC Reports: Immigration detention statistics and facility capacity data
SEC Filings: 10-K reports for GEO Group and CoreCivic financial disclosures
DHS OIG Reports: Facility inspection reports and compliance monitoring
Austin Kocher Research: Independent immigration policy analysis and reporting
Detention Watch Network: Advocacy organization monitoring and documentation