Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002
OR
[   ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number: 0-25245

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

10 BURTON HILLS BLVD., NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37215
(Address and zip code of principal executive office)

REGISTRANT’S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE: (615) 263-3000

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT: NONE

Indicate by 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 (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [   ]

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 registrant’s 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. [   ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes [X] No [   ]

The aggregate market value of the shares of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $461,141,586 as of June 28, 2002, based on the closing price of such shares on the New York Stock Exchange on that day. The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding on March 18, 2003 was 28,103,110.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled to be held on May 15, 2003, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
FORM 10-K
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

This annual report on Form 10-K contains statements that are forward-looking statements as defined within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give our current expectations of forecasts of future events. All statements other than statements of current or historical fact contained in this annual report, including statements regarding our future financial position, business strategy, budgets, projected costs and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “projects,” “will,” and similar expressions, as they relate to us, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are based on our current plans and actual future activities, and our results of operations may be materially different from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. In particular, these include, among other things, statements relating to:

	•		the growth in the privatization of the corrections and detention industry and the public acceptance of our services;
	•		our ability to obtain and maintain correctional facility management contracts, including as the result of sufficient governmental appropriations, and the timing of the opening of new facilities;
	•		changes in government policy and in legislation and regulation of the corrections and detention industry that adversely affect our business;
	•		the availability of debt and equity financing on terms that are favorable to us;
	•		fluctuations in operating results because of changes in occupancy levels, competition, increases in cost of operations, fluctuations in interest rates and risks of operations;
	•		tax related risks; and
	•		general economic and market conditions.

Any or all of our forward-looking statements in this annual report may turn out to be inaccurate. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. They can be affected by inaccurate assumptions we might make or by known or unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions described in “Risk Factors.”

In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this annual report may not occur and actual results could differ materially from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements. When you consider these forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind these risk factors and other cautionary statements in this annual report, including in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Business.”

Our forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise 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 contained in this annual report.

4

Table of Contents

PART I.

ITEM 1. BUSINESS.

Overview

We are the nation’s largest owner and operator of privatized correctional and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States behind only the federal government and four states. At December 31, 2002, we owned 40 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities, three of which we lease to other operators, and one additional facility which is not yet in operation. At December 31, 2002, we operated 60 facilities, including 37 facilities that we owned, with a total design capacity of approximately 59,000 beds in 21 states and the District of Columbia.

We specialize in owning, operating and managing prisons and other correctional facilities and providing inmate residential and prisoner transportation services for governmental agencies. In addition to providing the fundamental residential services relating to inmates, our facilities offer a variety of rehabilitation and educational programs, including basic education, religious services, life skills and employment training and substance abuse treatment. These services are intended to help reduce recidivism and to prepare inmates for their successful reentry into society upon their release. We also provide health care (including medical, dental and psychiatric services), food services and work and recreational programs.

Our website address is www.correctionscorp.com. We make our Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, and Form 8-K reports available on our website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports are filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Information contained on our website is not part of this report.

Operations

Management and Operation of Facilities. Our customers consist of local, state and federal correctional and detention authorities. For the year ended December 31, 2002, federal correctional and detention authorities represented approximately 32% of our total revenue. Federal correctional and detention authorities consist of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”), the United States Marshals Service (the “USMS”) and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the “INS”). Effective March 1, 2003, the INS was integrated with the Department of Homeland Security, and is now known as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Our management services contracts typically have terms of one to five years, and contain multiple renewal options. Most of our facility contracts also contain clauses that allow the government agency to terminate the contract at any time without cause, and our contracts are generally subject to annual or bi-annual legislative appropriation of funds.

We are compensated for operating and managing facilities at an inmate per-diem rate based upon actual or minimum guaranteed occupancy levels. Occupancy rates for a particular facility are typically low when first opened or when expansions are first available. However, beyond the start-up period, which typically ranges from 90 to 180 days, the occupancy rate tends to stabilize. For 2002 and 2001, the average compensated occupancy, based on rated capacity, of our facilities was 89.6% and 88.4%, respectively, for all of the facilities we owned or managed exclusive of those discontinued. From a capacity perspective, we currently have two facilities that are substantially vacant and provide us with approximately 3,000 available beds. These beds can be brought on-line with only minimal capital outlays.

5

Table of Contents

Our contracts generally require us to operate each facility in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. We are required by our contracts to maintain certain levels of insurance coverage for general liability, workers’ compensation, vehicle liability and property loss or damage. We are also required to indemnify the contracting agencies for claims and costs arising out of our operations and, in certain cases, to maintain performance bonds and other collateral requirements. Approximately 80% of the facilities we operate are accredited by the American Correctional Association Commission on Accreditation. The American Correctional Association, or the ACA, is an independent organization comprised of professionals in the corrections industry that establish standards by which a correctional institution may gain accreditation.

Operating Procedures. Pursuant to the terms of our management contracts, we are responsible for the overall operation of our facilities, including staff recruitment, general administration of the facilities, facility maintenance, security and supervision of the offenders. We also provide a variety of rehabilitative and educational programs at our facilities. Inmates at most facilities we manage may receive basic education through academic programs designed to improve inmate literacy levels and the opportunity to acquire General Education Development, or GED, certificates. We also offer vocational training to inmates who lack marketable job skills. In addition, we offer life skills transition planning programs that provide inmates with job search skills, health education, financial responsibility training, parenting and other skills associated with becoming productive citizens. At several of our facilities, we also offer counseling, education and/or treatment to inmates with alcohol and drug abuse problems through our LifeLine™ program. We believe these programs reduce recidivism.

We operate each facility in accordance with company-wide policies and procedures and the standards and guidelines established by the ACA. The ACA believes its standards safeguard the life, health and safety of offenders and personnel and, accordingly, these standards are the basis of the accreditation process and define policies and procedures for operating programs. The ACA standards, which are the industry’s most widely accepted correctional standards, describe specific objectives to be accomplished and cover such areas as administration, personnel and staff training, security, medical and health care, food services, inmate supervision and physical plant requirements. We have sought and received ACA accreditation for 47 of the facilities we currently manage, and we intend to apply for ACA accreditation for all of our eligible facilities. The accreditation process is usually completed 18 to 24 months after a facility is opened.

We devote considerable resources to monitoring compliance with contractual and other requirements and to maintain a high level of quality assurance at each facility through a system of formal reporting, corporate oversight, site reviews and inspection by on-site facility administrators.

Under our management contracts, we usually provide the contracting government agency with the services, personnel and material necessary for the operation, maintenance and security of the facility and the custody of inmates. We offer full logistical support to the facilities we manage, including security, health care services, transportation, building and ground maintenance, education, treatment and counseling services and food services.

Our operations department, in conjunction with our legal department, supervises compliance of each facility with operational standards contained in the various management contracts as well as those of professional and government agencies. These responsibilities include developing specific policies and procedures manuals, monitoring all management contracts, ensuring compliance with applicable labor and affirmative action standards, training and administration of personnel, purchasing supplies and developing educational, vocational, counseling and life skills inmate programs. We provide

6

Table of Contents

meals for inmates at the facilities we operate in accordance with regulatory, client and nutritional requirements. These catering responsibilities include hiring and training staff, monitoring food operations, purchasing food and supplies, and maintaining equipment, as well as adhering to all applicable safety and nutritional standards and codes.

Facility Portfolio

General. Our facilities can generally be classified according to the level(s) of security at such facility. Minimum-security facilities are facilities having open housing within an appropriately designed and patrolled institutional perimeter. Medium-security facilities are facilities having either cells, rooms or dormitories, a secure perimeter and some form of external patrol. Maximum-security facilities are facilities having single occupancy cells, a secure perimeter and external patrol. Multi-security facilities are facilities with various areas encompassing either minimum, medium or maximum security. Non-secure facilities are juvenile facilities having open housing that inhibit movement by their design. Secure facilities are juvenile facilities having cells, rooms, or dormitories, a secure perimeter and some form of external patrol.

Our facilities can also be classified according to their primary function. The primary functional categories are:

	•		Correctional Facilities. Correctional facilities house and provide contractually agreed upon programs and services to sentenced adult prisoners, typically prisoners on whom a sentence in excess of one year has been imposed.
	•		Detention Facilities. Detention facilities house and provide contractually agreed upon programs and services to prisoners being detained by the INS, prisoners who are awaiting trial who have been charged with violations of federal criminal law who are in the custody of the USMS or state criminal law, and prisoners who have been convicted of crimes and on whom a sentence of one year or less has been imposed.
	•		Juvenile Facilities. Juvenile facilities house and provide contractually agreed upon programs and services to juveniles, typically defined by applicable federal or state law as being persons below the age of 18, who have been determined to be delinquents by a juvenile court and who have been committed for an indeterminate period of time but who typically remain confined for a period of six months or less.
	•		Leased Facilities. Leased facilities are facilities that fall into one of the three foregoing categories and that we own but do not manage.

Facilities and Facility Management Contracts. At December 31, 2002, we owned 40 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities in 14 states and the District of Columbia, three of which we lease to other operators, and one additional facility which is not yet in operation. We also own two corporate office buildings. We have pledged each of the properties we own to secure borrowings under our senior bank credit facility. At December 31, 2002, we leased one of these facilities to a government agency and two of these facilities to private operators. Subsequent to December 31, 2002, we purchased the Crowley County Correctional Facility, a 1,200-bed medium security adult male prison facility located in Olney Springs, Colorado. Additionally, at December 31, 2002, we managed 23 correctional and detention facilities owned by government agencies. Subsequent to year-end our contracts to manage the Okeechobee Juvenile Offender Correctional Center, a 96-bed juvenile facility located in Okeechobee, Florida, and the Lawrenceville Correctional Center, a 1500-bed correctional center located in Lawrenceville, Virginia, were terminated. The following table sets forth all of the facilities we currently (i) own and manage, (ii) own, but are leased to another

7

Table of Contents

operator, and (iii) manage but are owned by a government authority. The table includes certain information regarding each facility, including the term of the primary management contract related to such facility, or, in the case of facilities we own but lease to another operator, the term of such lease. As set forth in the following table, we have numerous management contracts that expire, or have expired, during 2003 with no remaining renewal options. We have continued, and expect to continue, to manage or lease these facilities, although we can provide no assurance that we will maintain our contracts to manage these facilities.

8

Table of Contents

9

Table of Contents

10

Table of Contents

11

Table of Contents

(G)		The facility is subject to a purchase option held by the Tallahatchie County Correctional Authority which grants Tallahatchie County Correctional Authority the right to purchase the facility at any time during the contract at a price generally equal to the cost of the premises less an allowance for amortization over a 20-year period. This facility is substantially vacant.
(H)		The State of Montana has an option to purchase the facility at fair market value generally at any time during the term of the contract.
(I)		All inmates were transferred out of this facility during 2001 due to a new law that mandated that the BOP assume jurisdiction of all District of Columbia offenders under the custody of the BOP by the end of 2001.
(J)		The facility is subject to a purchase option held by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, or ODC, which grants the ODC the right to purchase the facility at its fair market value at any time.
(K)		Upon the conclusion of the thirty-year lease with Shelby County, Tennessee, the facility will become the property of Shelby County. Prior to such time, if the County terminates the lease without cause, breaches the lease or the State fails to fund the contract, we may purchase the property for $150,000. If we terminate the lease without cause, or breach the contract, we will be required to purchase the property for its fair market value as agreed to by the County and us.
(L)		The State of Tennessee has the option to purchase the facility in the event of our bankruptcy, or upon an operational breach, as defined, at a price equal to the book value, as defined.
(M)		The District of Columbia has the right to purchase the facility at any time during the term of the contract at a price generally equal to the present value of the remaining lease payments for the premises. Upon expiration of the lease, ownership of the facility automatically reverts to the District of Columbia.
(N)		The alternative educational facility is currently configured to accommodate 900 at-risk juveniles and may be expanded to accommodate a total of 1,400 at-risk juveniles.

Facilities Under Construction or Development. In addition to owning and/or managing the facilities listed in the preceding table, we own the Stewart County Detention Center located in Stewart County, Georgia. The 297,550 square foot medium security facility will have a design capacity of 1,524 beds and is partially complete. We estimate that the facility could be completed with approximately $20.0 million of capital expenditures. At this time, there are no plans to complete this project.

The Corrections and Detention Industry

Growth of the United States Prison Population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the BJS, the United States prison population, along with incarceration rates, has increased since 1925, independent of economic cycles. The number of inmates housed in United States federal and state prisons and local jail facilities increased from 1,148,702 at December 31, 1990 to 1,962,220 at December 31, 2001, the latest date such information is available from the BJS. Although the average annual growth rate decreased to 1.3% between December 2000 and December 2001, the average annual growth rate for the federal inmate population remained strong at 7.0%, while the average annual growth rate for state and local inmate populations were 0.4% and 1.6%, respectively.

The average annual growth rate of the prison population in the United States between December 1995 and December 2001 was 3.6%. During this time period, federal, state, and local inmate populations increased 8.2%, 3.0%, and 3.7%, respectively. Federal agencies are collectively our largest customer and accounted for approximately 33% of total management revenue (when aggregating all of our federal contracts) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Prison Overcrowding. The significant growth of the prison population in the United States has led to overcrowding in the state and federal prison systems. At least 22 states and the federal prison system reported operating at 100% or more of their highest capacity in 2001, with the federal prison system operating at 31% above capacity at December 31, 2001.

Further, we believe the moderation in growth rates for state and local inmate populations represent short-term declines resulting from budget difficulties currently experienced by state and local governments, which have utilized alternative sentencing, such as early release programs, parole and half-way houses, in an attempt to manage their budget constraints. However, we do not believe these temporary decisions represent long-term solutions to the prison overcrowding problem.

12

Table of Contents

Benefits of Privatization. The growth of the overall prison population in the United States and the lack of available bed space have led to growth in the private corrections and detention sector since its inception. The prisoner population housed in privately managed facilities in the United States at the end of December 2001 was 91,828, which represented a 5.1% increase over numbers at December 31, 2000. At December 31, 2001, 12.3% of all federal inmates and 5.8% of all state inmates were held in private facilities. Seven states and the District of Columbia, all of which are our customers, housed at least 20% of their prison population in private facilities as of December 31, 2001 — New Mexico (44%), Alaska (32%), Montana (33%), Oklahoma (29%), Idaho (22%), Hawaii (23%), Wyoming (28%), and the District of Columbia (36%).

We believe the outsourcing of prison management services to private operators allows governments to manage increasing inmate populations while simultaneously controlling correctional costs and improving correctional services. The use of facilities owned and managed by private operators allows governments to expand prison capacity without incurring large capital commitments required to increase correctional capacity. In addition, contracting with a private operator allows governmental agencies to add beds without incurring new debt. We believe these advantages translate into significant cost savings for the government end-user.

Continued Demand for Our Services. Despite the slower growth rate of the overall prison population and the state prison population in recent years, we believe that a number of factors will cause this growth rate, and the demand for private prison beds, to increase. As described above, there is a general shortage of available beds in United States correctional and detention facilities, particularly in the federal system. We expect this overcrowding to continue in the future as a result of stricter sentencing guidelines, longer prison sentences and prison terms for juvenile offenders, as well as demographic changes. In addition, state budgeting problems can be expected to result in a curtailment of the construction of new facilities, restricting the public supply of available beds. Industry reports indicate that inmates convicted of violent crimes generally serve approximately one-half of their sentence, with the majority of them being repeat offenders. In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau now projects a steady rise in the number of males between the ages of 18 and 24 years of age. Males between 18 and 24 years of age have demonstrated the highest propensity for criminal behavior and the highest rates of arrest, conviction and incarceration.

As the result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the protection and security of the United States has become a priority for the federal government. As a result, we believe that recently proposed initiatives by the federal government in connection with homeland security should cause the demand for prison beds, including privately managed beds, to increase. The final funding levels for the President’s fiscal 2003 budget included an increase of $27.5 million, or 4.1%, for the USMS, and more than $1.4 billion, or 29.7% for the INS, two of our largest customers. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2004 includes a proposal for $35 billion for homeland security, excluding the department of defense, an increase of $2.5 billion, or 7.6%. If enacted at these levels, spending would have more than doubled from pre-September 11, 2001 levels. This proposed funding is intended to support the agencies’ efforts to prevent illegal entry into the United States and target persons that are a threat to homeland security. We believe that these efforts will likely result in more incarceration and detention, particularly of illegal immigrants, and increased supervision of persons on probation and parole.

13

Table of Contents

Business Development

General

We are currently the nation’s largest provider of outsourced correctional management services. We manage approximately 50% of all beds under contract with private operators of correctional and detention facilities in the United States.

Under the direction of our business development department and our senior management and with the aid, where appropriate, of certain independent consultants, we market our services to government agencies responsible for federal, state and local correctional facilities in the United States. Recently, the industry has experienced greater opportunities at the federal level, as needs are increasing within the BOP, the USMS and the INS. The BOP and the USMS were our only customers that accounted for 10.0% or more of our total revenue in 2002 and 2001. During the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, the BOP generated 14% and 13%, respectively, of our total revenue, while the USMS generated 11% and 9% of total revenue during the same time periods. Contracts at the federal level generally offer more favorable contract terms. For example, many federal contracts contain “take-or-pay” clauses that guarantee us a certain percentage of management revenue, regardless of occupancy levels.

We believe that we can further develop our business by, among other things:

	•		maintaining our existing customer relationships and continuing to fill existing beds within our facilities;
	•		enhancing the terms of our existing contracts; and
	•		establishing relationships with new customers who have either previously not outsourced their correctional management needs or have utilized other private enterprises.

We generally receive inquiries from or on behalf of government agencies that are considering outsourcing the management of certain facilities or that have already decided to contract with private enterprise. When we receive such an inquiry, we determine whether there is an existing need for our services and whether the legal and political climate in which the inquiry party operates is conducive to serious consideration of outsourcing. Based on the findings, an initial cost analysis is conducted to further determine project feasibility.

We pursue our business opportunities primarily through Request for Proposals, or RFPs, and Request for Qualifications, or RFQs. RFPs and RFQs are issued by government agencies and are solicited for bid.

Generally, government agencies responsible for correctional and detention services procure goods and services through RFPs and RFQs. Most of our activities in the area of securing new business are in the form of responding to RFPs. As part of our process of responding to RFPs, members of our management team meet with the appropriate personnel from the agency making the request to best determine the agency’s needs. If the project fits within our strategy, we submit a written response to the RFP. A typical RFP requires bidders to provide detailed information, including, but not limited to, the service to be provided by the bidder, its experience and qualifications, and the price at which the bidder is willing to provide the services (which services may include the renovation, improvement or expansion of an existing facility or the planning, design and construction of a new facility). Based on the proposals received in response to an RFP, the agency will award a contract to the successful bidder. In addition to issuing formal RFPs, local jurisdictions may issue an RFQ. In

14

Table of Contents

the RFQ process, the requesting agency selects a firm believed to be most qualified to provide the requested services and then negotiates the terms of the contract with that firm, including the price at which its services are to be provided.

In January 2003, we announced the hiring of Kenneth A. Bouldin as our chief development officer and an executive vice president. In his capacity as chief development officer, Mr. Bouldin will oversee all business development activities, including oversight of existing federal, state and local government corrections contracts. He will also lead efforts to expand our corrections management services, including our newly formed local customer relations department, which will target expanding business opportunities in the local jail markets, in addition to overseeing our federal customer relations, state customer relations, and marketing and communications departments. Mr. Bouldin’s background is further described under “Information Concerning Our Executive Officers” in Item 10 herein.

Competitive Strengths

We believe that we have and will benefit from the following competitive business and operating strengths:

We are the largest and most recognized private prison operator. Currently, as the owner of 41 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities and the manager of 59 facilities throughout the United States, we are the largest and the most recognized private prison operator in the United States. We manage approximately 50% of all privately managed prison beds in the United States. We pioneered modern-day private prisons with a list of notable accomplishments, including being the first company to design, build and operate a private prison and the first company to manage a private maximum-security facility under a direct contract with the federal government.

Available beds within our existing facilities provide us the opportunity to increase cash flow. We currently have two facilities, our Northeast Ohio Correctional Center and Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, that are substantially vacant and provide us with approximately 3,000 available beds. We believe, depending on the customers’ needs, we can put these beds in operation with modest capital outlays. We also have an additional facility located in Stewart County, Georgia which is partially complete. This facility could bring approximately 1,500 additional beds on-line with approximately $20 million of additional capital expenditures. As an alternative to filling these beds, we would consider selling these facilities. In addition to these three facilities, as of December 31, 2002, we had a total of seven facilities that had 200 or more beds available at each facility, which we believe provides further potential for increased cash flow.

Our facilities generate revenues from a diverse, high quality customer base. We provide services under management contracts with a diverse base of state and federal agencies that generally have credit ratings of single-A or better. In addition, we have management contracts with approximately 50 different customers, with only two customers, the BOP and the USMS, accounting for more than 10% of our total revenues during 2002. In addition, with average lengths of stay between three and five years, prison occupancy is relatively predictable and stable.

Proven senior management team. Beginning in August 2000, we appointed a new senior management team. Our senior management team has accomplished a number of high priority company initiatives, including: (1) completing a restructuring of the Company during the fourth quarter of 2000, converting from a real estate investment trust to an operating company, as further described under “General Development of Business”; (2) reducing our senior debt by over $189.0 million during 2001 and refinancing our senior indebtedness during the second quarter of 2002; (3) securing 3,300-bed contracts with the BOP at our California City, California and Cibola County, New Mexico facilities, and the 1,500-bed contract with the BOP pursuant to the Criminal Alien Requirement Phase II Solicitation, or CAR II, the three largest contracts in our history; (4) selling four assets for proceeds

15

Table of Contents

of $138.7 million; (5) settling all of our pending stockholder litigation as well as several other material contingencies, including a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, with respect to our predecessor’s 1997 federal income tax return, on terms we believe were favorable; and (6) acquiring a 1,200-bed correctional facility located in Olney Springs, Colorado at a cost that we believe will provide favorable investment returns, expanding our bed capacity in a state where projections call for significant inmate growth over the next several years.

Business Strategy

Our primary business strategy is to provide quality corrections services, increase occupancy and revenue, control operating costs and continue to reduce our debt, while maintaining our position as the leading owner, operator and manager of privatized correctional and detention facilities. We will also consider opportunities for growth, including potential acquisitions of businesses within our line of business and those that provide complementary services, provided we believe such opportunities will broaden our market and/or increase the services we can provide to our customers.

We own and operate high quality correctional and detention facilities. Approximately 80% of our facilities are accredited by the ACA, which we believe compares favorably to government sector. The quality of our operations is further illustrated by the fact that, according to “The 2001 Corrections Yearbook” published by the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., for the three years ended December 31, 2001, we had an escape ratio at our adult prison facilities that was less than two-thirds of the national average for adult prisons, while our facilities also experienced lower mortality and suicide rates than public sector prisons. We have experienced wardens managing our facilities, with an average of over 23 years of corrections experience and an average tenure of almost eight years with us.

We are focused on increasing our occupancy rate. We are typically compensated based on the number of inmates held in our facilities. We are pursuing a number of initiatives intended to increase occupancy. We are in discussions with the federal government and a number of states, including states that have not previously outsourced their correctional management services, regarding the placement of additional inmates in our facilities. We also are focused on renewing and enhancing the terms of our existing contracts. Given our significant number of available beds, we believe we can increase operating cash flow from increased occupancy without incurring significant capital expenditures. Our primary goal is to obtain contracts to fill our existing inventory of empty beds.

In addition, with lender consent, we will consider the expansion of existing facilities or the development or purchase of new prison facilities that we believe have favorable investment returns and increase value to our stockholders. In considering the decision to add additional capacity, we consider a number of factors including the targeted customer’s inmate populations versus capacity and projections for future inmate growth. Our goal is to have a contract in place prior to commitment for the construction or purchase of additional beds.

We intend to maintain effective cost controls. An important component of our strategy is to position our company as a cost effective, high quality provider of corrections management services. We are focused on improving operating performance and efficiency through the following key operating initiatives: (1) standardizing supply and service purchasing practices and usage; (2) outsourcing the purchase of food products and services nationwide; (3) improving inmate management, resource consumption and reporting procedures through the utilization of numerous technology initiatives; and (4) improving productivity and reducing employee turnover. We intend to continue to implement a wide variety of specialized services that address the unique needs of various segments of the inmate population. Because the facilities we operate differ with respect to security levels, ages, genders and

16

Table of Contents

cultures of inmates, we focus on the particular needs of an inmate population and tailor our services based on local conditions and our ability to provide services on a cost-effective basis.

We intend to continue our trend of reducing debt. In 2001, we reduced indebtedness by $189 million with the proceeds of asset sales and through cash flow generated from operations. We believe this reduction in indebtedness assisted us in our ability to refinance our senior indebtedness on favorable terms during May 2002. We believe that our anticipated capital expenditures and the benefit of our net operating loss carryforwards will allow us to generate free cash flow and enable us to continue to reduce our debt. In addition, we may sell additional assets, the proceeds of which we would also use to repay debt.

General Development of Business

The Company

We are a Maryland corporation formerly known as Prison Realty Trust, Inc., also referred to herein as New Prison Realty, which commenced operations as Prison Realty Corporation on January 1, 1999, following its mergers with each of the former Corrections Corporation of America, a Tennessee corporation, also referred to herein as Old CCA, on December 31, 1998, and CCA Prison Realty Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust, also referred to herein as Old Prison Realty, on January 1, 1999. These mergers are referred to collectively herein as the 1999 merger and we are referred to as New Prison Realty for the period following the 1999 merger and prior to the completion of our restructuring discussed further herein under “ — The 2000 Restructuring and Related Transactions”.

Prior to the 1999 merger, Old Prison Realty had been a publicly traded entity operating as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, which was primarily in the business of owning and leasing prison facilities to private prison management companies and certain government entities. Prior to the 1999 merger, Old CCA was also a publicly traded entity engaged primarily in the business of owning, operating and managing prisons on behalf of government entities. Additionally, Old CCA, which was the largest developer and manager of private correctional and detention facilities worldwide, had been Old Prison Realty’s primary tenant.

The 1999 Merger

During the first quarter of 1998, Old Prison Realty and Old CCA proposed a strategic combination whereby the companies would be merged to create the nation’s leading company in the private corrections industry. Pursuant to the terms of an amended and restated agreement and plan of merger dated September 29, 1998, each of Old CCA and Old Prison Realty agreed to merge with and into New Prison Realty, with New Prison Realty as the surviving company. The companies also agreed to complete a series of transactions to enable New Prison Realty to operate so as to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes following the 1999 merger.

Effective January 1, 1999, New Prison Realty elected to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with its taxable year ended December 31, 1999. In order for New Prison Realty to quality as a REIT, New Prison Realty’s income generally could not include income from the operation and management of correctional and detention facilities, including those facilities operated and managed by Old CCA. Accordingly, immediately prior to the 1999 merger, Old CCA sold all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of certain of its wholly-owned corporate subsidiaries, certain management contracts and certain other non-real estate assets related thereto, to a newly formed entity, Correctional Management Services Corporation, a privately-held Tennessee

17

Table of Contents

corporation which operated under the “Corrections Corporation of America” name, which is referred to herein as Operating Company. Also immediately prior to the 1999 merger, Old CCA sold certain management contracts and other assets and liabilities relating to government owned adult facilities to Prison Management Services, LLC, or PMS, LLC (subsequently merged with Prison Management Services, Inc., or PMSI) and sold certain management contracts and other assets and liabilities relating to government owned jails and juvenile facilities to Juvenile and Jail Facility Management Services, LLC, or JJFMS, LLC (subsequently merged with Juvenile and Jail Facility Management Services, Inc., or JJFMSI). PMS, LLC and JJFMS, LLC were two privately-held Delaware limited liability companies formed in connection with the 1999 merger.

The 2000 Restructuring and Related Transactions

Following the 1999 merger, Operating Company, PMSI and JJFMSI assumed the business of operating correctional and detention facilities, with Operating Company being the lessee of a substantial number of New Prison Realty’s facilities.

In order to address liquidity constraints facing New Prison Realty, Operating Company, PMSI and JJFMSI, and to provide a simplified and more stable corporate and financial structure that allows us to retain earnings for capital purposes and to reduce debt, we merged with Operating Company, PMSI, and JJFMSI during the fourth quarter of 2000. In connection with the consummation of these mergers, we resumed operations under the “Corrections Corporation of America” name and ceased operating as a REIT.

In connection with our corporate restructuring, we completed a restructuring of our board of directors and executive management, including the appointment of John D. Ferguson as our new chief executive officer and president and William F. Andrews as the chairman of our board of directors. Further, during the fourth quarter of 2000, and the first quarter of 2001, respectively, we appointed Irving E. Lingo, Jr. as our chief financial officer, and G. A. Puryear IV as our general counsel. In addition, at our 2000 annual meeting of stockholders, our stockholders elected a newly constituted nine-member board of directors, including six independent directors. All of these board members have been subsequently re-elected at our annual meetings of stockholders, with the exception of Jean-Pierre Cuny, who resigned from the board effective May 21, 2001. See “Our Directors and Executive Officers” for further information regarding our current directors and executive officers.

We believe the combination of these various changes led to significant improvement in our financial performance and condition, including a reduction of over $189 million of our senior debt in 2001 and the refinancing of our senior indebtedness during the second quarter of 2002.

Capital Strategy

As a result of our highly leveraged capital structure that existed upon completion of the restructuring in 2000, we have completed various transactions that we believe have improved our financial condition and positioned us for increased cash flow and future growth. In addition, while we have made significant progress, we continue to evaluate our capital structure in order to enhance our financial condition. The following information describes our debt and equity capital structure and, where applicable, certain steps we have taken to date and intend to take in the future in connection with our capital strategy.

18

Table of Contents

Debt Structure

As of December 31, 2002, we had $956.0 million of outstanding indebtedness, consisting of $624.5 million outstanding under our senior bank credit facility due 2008, $250.0 million of 9.875% senior notes due 2009, $10.8 million of 12% senior notes due 2006, $40.0 million of 10% convertible subordinated notes due 2008, $30.0 million of 8% convertible subordinated notes due 2005, and $0.7 million of other debt.

Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. During 1999, in an attempt to address its liquidity constraints at that time, New Prison Realty obtained an amendment to its then existing senior secured bank credit facility, referred to herein as the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, to increase the capacity from $650.0 million to $1.0 billion. The Old Senior Bank Credit Facility consisted of up to $600.0 million of term loans maturing on December 31, 2002, and up to $400.0 million in revolving loans maturing on January 1, 2002.

During the first quarter of 2000, the ratings on New Prison Realty’s bank indebtedness, senior unsecured indebtedness and series A preferred stock were lowered. As a result of these reductions, the interest rate applicable to outstanding amounts under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility for revolving loans was increased by 0.5%, to 1.5% over the base rate and to 3.0% over the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR; the spread for term loans remained unchanged at 2.5% for base rate loans and 4.0% for LIBOR rate loans.

During June 2000, New Prison Realty obtained a waiver and amendment to the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility that waived or addressed all then existing events of default under the provisions of the facility that resulted from: (i) the financial condition of New Prison Realty and Operating Company; (ii) certain transactions undertaken by New Prison Realty and Operating Company in an attempt to resolve the liquidity issues of New Prison Realty and Operating Company; and (iii) agreements entered into with respect to certain previously announced restructuring transactions. As a result of the then existing defaults, New Prison Realty was subject to the default rate of interest, or 2.0% higher than the rates discussed above, effective from January 25, 2000 until June 9, 2000, and under terms of the June 2000 waiver and amendment, the interest rate spreads applicable to outstanding borrowings under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility were increased by 0.5%. As a result, the range of the spread for the revolving loans became 1.0% to 2.75% for base rate loans and 2.5% to 4.25% for LIBOR rate loans. The resulting range of the spread for the term loans became 2.75% to 3.0% for base rate loans and 4.25% to 4.5% for LIBOR rate loans. Based on our credit rating at that time, the range of the spread for revolving loans was 2.75% for base rate loans and 4.25% for LIBOR rate loans, while the range of the spread for term loans was 3.0% for base rate loans and 4.5% for LIBOR rate loans.

During the third and fourth quarters of 2000, we were not in compliance with certain applicable financial covenants contained in the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, including (i) debt service coverage ratio; (ii) interest coverage ratio; (iii) leverage ratio; and (iv) net worth. As a result, in November 2000, we obtained the consent of our senior lenders to replace previously existing financial covenants with amended financial covenants.

As a result of the November 2000 consent and amendment, the interest rate applicable to our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility remained unchanged from the rate stipulated in the June 2000 waiver and amendment. This applicable rate, however, was subject to (i) an increase of 25 basis points (0.25%) on July 1, 2001 if we had not prepaid $100.0 million of the outstanding loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility by such date, and (ii) an increase of 50 basis points (0.50%) on October 1, 2001

19

Table of Contents

if we had not prepaid an aggregate of $200.0 million of the loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility by such date.

We satisfied the condition to prepay, prior to July 1, 2001, $100.0 million of outstanding loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility through the application of proceeds from the sales of the Mountain View Correctional Facility for approximately $24.9 million, the Pamlico Correctional Facility for approximately $24.0 million, through the sale of all of the outstanding capital stock of Agecroft Properties, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours, for approximately $65.7 million, and through the lump sum pay-down of $35.0 million of outstanding loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility with cash on hand. Although we applied additional proceeds of approximately $24.1 million from the sale of the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility to further pay-down the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, we did not satisfy the condition to prepay, prior to October 1, 2001, $200.0 million of outstanding loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. As a result, the interest rates under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility were increased by 0.50% until December 2001, when we completed an amendment and restatement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. As part of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, the existing $269.4 million revolving portion of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, which was scheduled to mature on January 1, 2002, was replaced with a term loan of the same amount maturing on December 31, 2002, to coincide with the maturity of the other $524.7 million of term loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility.

Pursuant to terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, interest on all loans under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility was payable at a variable rate of 5.5% over LIBOR, or 4.5% over the base rate, at our option. As a result of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, certain financial and non-financial covenants were amended, including the removal of prior restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock, including all dividends in arrears. Accordingly, during the first quarter of 2002, we paid an aggregate of $12.9 million to holders of the series A preferred stock in satisfaction of all dividends then in arrears and the dividend for the then current quarter.

After completing the amendment and restatement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility in December 2001, Moody’s Investors Service upgraded the rating on our senior secured debt to “B2” from “B3”, our senior unsecured debt to “B3” from “Caa1”, and our preferred stock to “Caa2” from “Ca”.

Comprehensive Refinancing. We believed, and continue to believe, that a short-term extension of the revolving portion of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility was in our best interest for a longer-term financing strategy, particularly due to difficult market conditions for the issuance of debt securities following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and during the fourth quarter of 2001. Additionally, we believed that certain terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, including primarily the removal of prior restrictions to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock, including all dividends in arrears, resulted in an improvement to our credit ratings, enhancing the terms of a more comprehensive refinancing.

On May 3, 2002, we completed a comprehensive refinancing of our senior indebtedness through the refinancing of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility and the sale and issuance of $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of 9.875% unsecured senior notes due 2009, referred to herein as the 9.875% Senior Notes. The proceeds of the offering of the 9.875% Senior Notes were used to repay a portion of amounts outstanding under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, to redeem approximately $89.2 million of our existing $100.0 million 12% Senior Notes due 2006, referred to herein as the 12% Senior Notes, pursuant to a tender offer and consent solicitation more fully described below, and to pay related fees and expenses.

20

Table of Contents

New Senior Bank Credit Facility. As part of the refinancing, we obtained a new $715.0 million senior secured bank credit facility, referred to herein as the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, which replaced the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. serves as administrative agent under the new facility, which is comprised of a $75.0 million revolving loan with a term of approximately four years, referred to herein as the Revolving Loan, a $75.0 million term loan with a term of approximately four years, referred to herein as the Term Loan A Facility, and a $565.0 million term loan with a term of approximately six years, referred to herein as the Term Loan B Facility. As further discussed below, the Term Loan B Facility was increased by $30.0 million in connection with the acquisition of the Crowley County Correctional Facility in January 2003. All borrowings under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility initially bear interest at a base rate plus 2.5%, or LIBOR plus 3.5%, at our option. The applicable margin for the Revolving Loan and the Term Loan A Facility is subject to adjustment based on our leverage ratio. We are also required to pay a commitment fee on the difference between committed amounts and amounts actually utilized under the Revolving Loan equal to 0.50% per year subject to adjustment based on our leverage ratio.

We may use the Revolving Loan, which currently has no amounts outstanding, for working capital and general corporate needs.

Prepayments of loans outstanding under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility are permitted at any time without premium or penalty, upon the giving of proper notice. In addition, we are required to prepay amounts outstanding under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility in an amount equal to: (i) 50% of the net cash proceeds from any sale or issuance of equity securities by us or any of our subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions; (ii) 100% of the net cash proceeds from any incurrence of additional indebtedness (excluding certain permitted debt), subject to certain exceptions; (iii) 100% of the net cash proceeds from any sale or other disposition by us, or any of our subsidiaries, of any assets, subject to certain exclusions and reinvestment provisions and excluding certain dispositions in the ordinary course of business; and (iv) 50% of our “excess cash flow” (as such term is defined in the New Senior Bank Credit Facility) for each fiscal year.

The credit agreement governing the New Senior Bank Credit Facility requires us to meet certain financial covenants, including, without limitation, a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio, a maximum leverage ratio and a minimum interest coverage ratio. In addition, the New Senior Bank Credit Facility contains certain covenants which, among other things, limit the incurrence of additional indebtedness, investments, payment of dividends, transactions with affiliates, asset sales, acquisitions, capital expenditures, mergers and consolidations, prepayments and modifications of other indebtedness, liens and encumbrances and other matters customarily restricted in such agreements. In addition, the New Senior Bank Credit Facility is subject to certain cross-default provisions with terms of our other indebtedness.

In connection with the refinancing, we terminated an interest rate swap agreement at a price of approximately $8.8 million. The swap agreement, which fixed LIBOR at 6.51% on outstanding balances of $325.0 million through its expiration on December 31, 2002, had been entered into in order to satisfy a requirement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. In addition, in order to satisfy a requirement of the New Senior Bank Credit Facility and in order to reduce our exposure to an increase in variable interest rates on a significant portion of our debt, we purchased an interest rate cap agreement, capping LIBOR at 5.0% on outstanding balances of $200.0 million through the expiration of the cap agreement on May 20, 2004, for a price of $1.0 million. While the current interest rate environment is very favorable with interest rates remaining at historic lows, we continue to monitor external factors that could cause interest rates to rise. Accordingly, we may enter into

21

Table of Contents

additional interest rate protection agreements in the future to mitigate our exposure to increases in interest rates.

9.875% Senior Notes. Interest on the 9.875% Senior Notes accrues at the stated rate, and is payable semi-annually in arrears on May 1 and November 1 of each year. The 9.875% Senior Notes mature on May 1, 2009. At any time before May 1, 2005, we may redeem up to 35% of the notes with the net proceeds of certain equity offerings, as long as 65% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes remains outstanding after the redemption. We may redeem all or a portion of the 9.875% Senior Notes on or after May 1, 2006. Redemption prices are set forth in the indenture governing the 9.875% Senior Notes. The 9.875% Senior Notes are guaranteed on an unsecured basis by all of our domestic subsidiaries.

The indenture governing the 9.875% Senior Notes contains certain customary covenants that, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, restrict our ability to, among other things: make restricted payments; incur additional debt or issue certain types of preferred stock; create or permit to exist certain liens; consolidate, merge or transfer all or substantially all of our assets; and enter into transactions with affiliates. In addition, if we sell certain assets (and generally do not use the proceeds of such sales for certain specified purposes) or experience specific kinds of changes in control, we must offer to repurchase all or a portion of the 9.875% Senior Notes. The offer price for the 9.875% Senior Notes in connection with an asset sale would be equal to 100% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes repurchased plus accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated damages, if any, on the notes repurchased to the date of purchase. The offer price for the 9.875% Senior Notes in connection with a change in control would be 101% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes repurchased plus accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated damages, if any, on the notes repurchased to the date of purchase. The 9.875% Senior Notes are also subject to certain cross-default provisions with the terms of our other indebtedness.

Tender Offer and Consent Solicitation for 12% Senior Notes. Pursuant to the terms of a tender offer and consent solicitation which expired on May 16, 2002, in connection with the refinancing, in May 2002, we redeemed approximately $89.2 million in aggregate principal amount of our 12% Senior Notes with proceeds from the issuance of the 9.875% Senior Notes. The notes were redeemed at a price of 110% of par, which included a 3% consent payment, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the payment date. In connection with the tender offer and consent solicitation, we received sufficient consents and amended the indenture governing the 12% Senior Notes to delete substantially all of the restrictive covenants and events of default contained therein.

We are required to pay interest semi-annually and principal upon maturity on the remaining 12% Senior Notes outstanding, in accordance with the original terms of such notes.

Upon completion of the comprehensive refinancing in May 2002, Moody’s Investors Service upgraded its rating of our senior secured debt to “B1” from “B2”, our senior unsecured debt to “B2” from “B3”, and our preferred stock to “Caa1” from “Caa2”, and Standard & Poor’s upgraded our corporate credit rating and its rating of our senior secured debt to “B+” from “B” and our senior unsecured debt to “B-” from “CCC+”.

$40.0 Million Convertible Subordinated Notes. In addition to the indebtedness referred to above, we have $40.0 million in convertible subordinated notes outstanding at December 31, 2002. During the first and second quarters of 2000, certain existing or potential events of default arose under the provisions of the note purchase agreement relating to $40.0 million in convertible subordinated notes, as a result of our financial condition and a “change of control” arising from our execution of the securities purchase agreements with respect to certain proposed restructurings. This “change of

22

Table of Contents

control” gave rise to the right of the holders of such notes, MDP Ventures IV LLC and certain affiliated purchasers, referred to herein as MDP, to require us to repurchase the notes at a price of 105% of the aggregate principal amount of such notes within 45 days after the provision of written notice by such holders to us. In addition, our defaults under the provisions of the note purchase agreement gave rise to the right of the holders of such notes to require us to pay an applicable default rate of interest of 20.0%. In addition to the default rate of interest, as a result of the events of default, we were obligated, under the original terms of the notes, to pay the holders of the notes contingent interest sufficient to permit the holders to receive a 15.0% rate of return (increased by 0.5%, as further discussed below), excluding the effect of the default rate of interest, on the $40.0 million principal amount. The contingent interest is payable upon each of December 31, 2003 and upon repayment of the notes unless the holders of the notes elect to convert the notes into our common stock under the terms of the note purchase agreement or unless the price of our common stock meets or exceeds a “target price” as defined in the note purchase agreement. Such contingent interest was retroactive to the date of issuance of the notes.

In order to address the events of default discussed above, on June 30, 2000, we obtained a waiver and amendment to the provisions of the note purchase agreement governing the notes. This waiver and amendment provided for a waiver of all existing events of default under the provisions of the note purchase agreement. In addition, the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement amended the economic terms of the notes to increase the applicable interest rate of the notes by 0.5% per annum from 9.5% to 10.0%, and adjusted the conversion price of the notes to a price equal to 125% of the average high and low sales price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, for a period of 20 trading days immediately following the earlier of (i) October 31, 2000 or (ii) the closing date of the Operating Company merger. The waiver and amendment also increased the contingent interest rate to 15.5% retroactive to the date of issuance of the notes. In addition, the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement provided for the replacement of financial ratios applicable to us. The conversion price for the notes has been established at $11.90, subject to adjustment in the future upon the occurrence of certain events, including the payment of dividends and the issuance of stock at below market prices. Under the terms of the waiver and amendment, the distribution of our series B preferred stock during the fourth quarter of 2000 did not cause an adjustment to the conversion price of the notes. In addition, we do not believe that the distribution of shares of our common stock in connection with the settlement of all outstanding stockholder litigation against us causes an adjustment to the conversion price of the notes. MDP, however, has indicated its belief that such an adjustment is required. At an adjusted conversion price of $11.90, we estimate that the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes are convertible into approximately 3.4 million shares of common stock.

$30.0 Million Convertible Subordinated Notes. We also have $30.0 million in convertible subordinated notes outstanding at December 31, 2002. In late 1999 and early 2000 certain existing or potential events of default arose under the provisions of the note purchase agreement relating to the notes as a result of our financial condition and as a result of the proposed restructurings. However, on June 30, 2000, we obtained a waiver and amendment to the provisions of the note purchase agreement governing the notes. This waiver and amendment provided for a waiver of all existing events of default under the provisions of the note purchase agreement. In addition, the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement amended the economic terms of the notes to increase the applicable interest rate of the notes by 0.5% per annum, from 7.5% to 8.0%, and adjusted the conversion price of the notes to a price equal to 125% of the average closing price of our common stock on the NYSE for a period of 30 trading days immediately following the earlier of (i) October 31, 2000 or (ii) the closing date of the Operating Company merger. In addition, the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement provided for the replacement of certain financial ratios.

23

Table of Contents

The conversion price for the notes has been established at $10.68, subject to adjustment in the future upon the occurrence of certain events, including the payment of dividends and the issuance of stock at below market prices. Under the terms of the waiver and amendment, the distribution of our series B preferred stock during the fourth quarter of 2000 did not cause an adjustment to the conversion price of the notes. However, the distribution of shares of our common stock in connection with the settlement of all outstanding stockholder litigation against us will cause an adjustment to the conversion price of the notes in an amount to be determined at the time all shares of our common stock are distributed pursuant to the settlement. However, the ultimate adjustment to the conversion ratio will depend on the number of shares of our common stock outstanding on the date of issuance of the shares pursuant to the stockholder litigation settlement. In addition, since all of the shares are not issued simultaneously, multiple adjustments to the conversion ratio will be required. We currently estimate that the $30.0 million convertible subordinated notes will be convertible into approximately 3.4 million shares of our common stock once all of the shares under the stockholder litigation settlement have been issued.

At any time after February 28, 2004, we may require the holder of the notes to convert all or a portion of the principal amount of the indebtedness into shares of common stock if, at such time, the current market price of the common stock has equaled or exceeded 150% of the conversion price for 45 consecutive trading days.

Equity Structure

Common Stock. As of December 31, 2002, we had 28.0 million shares of common stock outstanding. In connection with the restructuring and related transactions completed in the fourth quarter of 2000, we engaged in a series of transactions which resulted in the issuance of shares of common stock and securities convertible into shares of common stock. These transactions are further discussed below. The common stock prices and shares discussed in this section have been adjusted to reflect our one-for-ten reverse stock split in May 2001.

	•		On October 1, 2000, we issued approximately 1.9 million shares of common stock in connection with our merger with Operating Company, including 1.1 million shares to the Baron Asset Fund and Sodexho Alliance S.A., the holders of approximately 34% of the outstanding common stock of Operating Company. In addition, we issued warrants to Baron to purchase approximately 142,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.01 per share and warrants to purchase approximately 71,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $14.10 per share in consideration for Baron’s consent to the Operating Company merger. Further, we assumed the obligation to issue up to approximately 75,000 shares of common stock, at a price of $33.30 per share to the holders of warrants to purchase shares of Operating Company’s common stock outstanding at the time of the merger.
	•		On December 1, 2000, we issued approximately 288,000 shares of common stock to the wardens of the facilities operated by the service companies in connection with the acquisitions of PMSI and JJFMSI.
	•		During October and December 2000, we issued approximately 9.5 million shares of common stock pursuant to the conversion of our series B preferred stock into shares of common stock, as further discussed below.
	•		In February 2001, we received court approval, which became final in March 2001, of the revised terms of the definitive settlement agreements regarding the “global” settlement of all outstanding stockholder litigation against us and certain of our existing and former directors

24

Table of Contents

and executive officers. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, we agreed to issue to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel:

	•		an aggregate of approximately 4.7 million shares of common stock;
	•		an aggregate $29.0 million subordinated promissory note; and
	•		approximately $47.5 million in cash payable solely from the proceeds of insurance policies.

			During 2001, we issued approximately 4.4 million shares of our common stock under terms of the settlement, along with a $26.1 million subordinated promissory note, in conjunction with the final settlement of the federal court portion of the stockholder litigation settlement. Under the terms of the promissory note, the note was extinguished in full in January 2002 as the result of the average closing price of our common stock meeting or exceeding a price of $16.30 per share for fifteen consecutive trading days following the issuance of the note. Upon completion of the settlement claims process in the state court portion of the stockholder litigation, we anticipate issuing approximately 310,000 additional shares of common stock to the eligible state class claimants. We will also issue a $2.9 million subordinated promissory note payable to the eligible claimants similar to the note issued in the federal settlement, which may also be extinguished if the average closing price of the common stock meets or exceeds $16.30 per share for fifteen consecutive trading days following the issuance of such note and prior to January 2, 2009, the maturity date of the note. Additionally, to the extent the common stock price does not meet the termination price, the note will be reduced by the amount that the shares of common stock issued to the plaintiffs in the state settlement appreciate in value in excess of $4.90 per share, based on the average trading price of the stock following the date of the note’s issuance and prior to its maturity. We currently expect the settlement claims process in the state portion of the stockholder litigation to be completed during 2003.
	•		On December 13, 2000, our stockholders approved a reverse stock split of our common stock at a ratio to be determined by the board of directors of not less than one-for-ten and not to exceed one-for-twenty. Our board of directors subsequently declared a one-for-ten reverse stock split of our common stock, which became effective May 18, 2001. The reverse stock split satisfied a condition of continued listing of our common stock on the NYSE. Additionally, we believe the reverse stock split has encouraged greater interest in our stock by the financial community and investing public.

Series A Preferred Stock. As of December 31, 2002, we had 4.3 million shares of series A preferred stock outstanding. In connection with the June 2000 waiver and amendment, we were prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends with respect to shares of our series A preferred stock until such time as we raised at least $100 million in equity. Dividends with respect to the series A preferred stock continued to accrue under the terms of our charter until such time as payment of such dividends was permitted under the terms of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility.

During the third quarter of 2001, we received a consent and waiver to the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, which allowed us to declare a one-time quarterly dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock. Accordingly, on September 28, 2001, our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock for the first quarter of previously accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares, payable on October 15, 2001 to the holders of record of our series A preferred stock on October 5, 2001. As a result of this declaration, the holders of our series A preferred stock were entitled to receive $0.50 per share for every share of series A preferred stock they held on the record

25

Table of Contents

date. The cash paid as the dividend was based on a dividend rate of 8.0% per year of the stock’s stated value ($25.00). Approximately $2.2 million was paid on October 15, 2001 as a result of this dividend.

In connection with the December 2001 amendment and restatement of the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, certain financial and non-financial covenants were amended, including the removal of prior restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock. Under the terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, we are permitted to pay quarterly dividends on the shares of our series A preferred stock, including all dividends in arrears.

On December 13, 2001, our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock for the fourth quarter of 2001 and all five quarters of previously accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares, payable on January 15, 2002 to the holders of record of our series A preferred stock on December 31, 2001. As a result of this declaration, the holders of our series A preferred stock were entitled to receive $3.00 per share for every share of series A preferred stock they held on the record date. The cash paid as the dividend was based on a dividend rate of 8.0% per year of the stock’s stated value. Approximately $12.9 million was paid on January 15, 2002 as a result of this dividend. We have continued to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock outstanding each quarter thereafter based on a dividend rate of 8.0% per year of the stock’s stated value.

The shares of series A preferred stock are redeemable at any time on or after January 31, 2003 at $25.00 per share, plus dividends accrued and unpaid to the redemption date.

Series B Preferred Stock. As of December 31, 2002, we had 4.4 million shares of series B preferred stock outstanding. In order to satisfy the REIT distribution requirements with respect to our 1999 taxable year, we issued approximately 7.5 million shares of a newly created series B preferred stock to shareholders of our common stock, as a stock dividend. The series B preferred stock was distributed September 22, 2000 to common stockholders of record on September 14, 2000, in the amount of five shares of series B preferred stock for every 100 shares of common stock held by the stockholder, and on November 13, 2000 to common stockholders of record on November 6, 2000, in the amount of one share of series B preferred stock for every 100 shares of common stock held by the stockholder. The series B preferred stock was convertible into shares of common stock during two separate conversion periods during the fourth quarter of 2000, the last of which expired on December 20, 2000, at a conversion price based on the average closing price of our common stock on the NYSE during the ten trading days prior to the first day of each applicable conversion period, subject to a floor of $10.00. During the two conversion periods, approximately 4.2 million shares of series B preferred stock were converted into approximately 9.5 million shares of common stock. The shares of series B preferred stock currently outstanding, as well as any additional shares issued as dividends, are not and will not be convertible into shares of our common stock.

The shares of series B preferred stock provide for cumulative dividends payable at a rate of 12% per year of the stock’s stated value of $24.46. The dividends are payable quarterly in arrears, in additional shares of series B preferred stock through the third quarter of 2003, and in cash thereafter, provided that all accrued and unpaid cash dividends have been made on our series A preferred stock.

During 2002 and 2001, we issued approximately 484,000 and 452,000 shares, respectively, of series B preferred stock in satisfaction of the regular quarterly distributions. We may call the shares of series B preferred stock at a price per share equal to the stated value of $24.46, plus any accrued dividends, at anytime after six months following the later of (i) three years following the date of issuance or (ii) the 91st day following the redemption of our 12% Senior Notes, due 2006.

26

Table of Contents

Recent Developments

Since completing the refinancing of our senior debt in May 2002, we have achieved the following significant accomplishments:

	•		On May 30, 2002, we were awarded a contract by the BOP to house 1,524 federal detainees at our McRae Correctional Facility located in McRae, Georgia. The initial term of the contract is for three years and includes seven one-year renewal options. The contract with the BOP guarantees at least 95% occupancy on a take-or-pay basis. The facility commenced full operations and began receiving inmates on December 1, 2002.
	•		On September 30, 2002, we announced a contract award from the State of Wisconsin to house up to a total of 5,500 medium-security Wisconsin inmates, although the State is under no obligation to utilize the capacity under the contract. The new contract replaced an existing contract with the State of Wisconsin on December 22, 2002. As of December 31, 2002, we managed approximately 3,500 Wisconsin inmates under the contract.
	•		On October 24, 2002 we entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the IRS in connection with the IRS’s audit of Old CCA’s 1997 federal income tax return. Under the terms of the settlement, in consideration for the IRS’s final determinations with respect to the 1997 tax year, in December 2002 we paid approximately $52.2 million in cash to satisfy federal and state taxes and interest.
			Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the audit adjustments agreed to for the 1997 tax year did not trigger any additional distribution requirements by us in order to preserve our status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes for 1999. The adjustments will, however, serve to increase our accumulated earnings and profits in 2002 and therefore will affect the taxability of dividends paid on our series A and series B preferred stock in 2002 and later years. We believe this settlement removed a significant financial uncertainty with respect to the ultimate liability and potential distribution requirement previously facing us.
			In addition, due to a change in tax law created by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, which was signed into law in March 2002, the settlement created an opportunity to utilize any 2002 tax losses to claim a refund of a portion of the taxes paid. We experienced tax losses during 2002 primarily resulting from a cumulative effect of accounting change in depreciable lives for tax purposes. Under terms of the new law, we utilized our net operating losses to offset taxable income generated in 1997, which was increased substantially in connection with the settlement with the IRS. As a result of the tax law change in 2002, combined with the adoption of an accounting change in the depreciable lives of certain tax assets, we will be due an income tax refund of approximately $32.1 million, which we expect to receive during the second quarter of 2003.
			We continue to evaluate additional tax strategies to maximize the opportunities created by the new law, which could result in an additional income tax refund and income tax benefits, although we can provide no assurance that any such tax strategies will come to fruition.
	•		On October 28, 2002, we entered into a new agreement with Hardeman County, Tennessee, with respect to the management of up to 1,536 medium security inmates from the State of Tennessee in our Whiteville Correctional Facility. We have begun to receive Tennessee inmates at the facility, and expect to continue receiving inmates under this contract through the first quarter of 2003.

27

Table of Contents

•

On January 17, 2003, after obtaining consent of the lenders under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, we purchased the Crowley County Correctional Facility, a 1,200-bed medium security adult male prison facility located in Olney Springs, Colorado, for a purchase price of approximately $47.5 million. We financed the purchase price through $30.0 million in borrowings under the New Senior Bank Credit Facility pursuant to an expansion of the Term Loan B Facility, with the balance of the purchase price satisfied with cash on hand. In connection with the acquisition, we assumed a management contract with the State of Colorado and entered into a new management contract with the State of Wyoming, and took over management of the facility effective January 18, 2003. We believe this acquisition provides favorable investment returns while adding capacity in a state where projections call for significant inmate growth over the next several years.

While the refinancing of our senior debt completed in May 2002 lowered our overall borrowing costs thereby increasing our cash flow, lengthened debt maturities, and provided more flexible covenants, we expect these recent developments to further contribute to an increase in profitability and cash flow in the future. We remain committed to improving our operations and continue to explore potential transactions to further enhance our capital structure.

Financial Information About Industry Segments

We are currently engaged primarily in the business of owning, operating and managing correctional and detention facilities, as well as providing prisoner transportation services for government agencies. As of December 31, 2002, we owned and managed 37 correctional and detention facilities, and managed an additional 23 correctional and detention facilities owned by governmental agencies. During the second quarter of 2001, we began viewing our operating results in two reportable segments: owned and managed correctional and detention facilities and managed-only correctional and detention facilities. The accounting policies of the reportable segments are the same as those described in the summary of significant accounting policies in the notes to consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report. Owned and managed facilities include the operating results of those facilities we own and manage. Managed-only facilities include the operating results of those facilities owned by a third party and managed by us. We measure the operating performance of each facility within the above two reportable segments, without differentiation, based on facility contribution. We define facility contribution as a facility’s operating income or loss from operations before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Since each of our facilities within the two reportable segments exhibit similar economic characteristics, provide similar services to governmental agencies, and operate under a similar set of operating procedures and regulatory guidelines, the facilities within the identified segments have been aggregated and reported as one reportable segment. The financial information and disclosures required under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 131, “Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information,” are included in this annual report as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000, referred to in the index to financial statements commencing on page F-1.

Government Regulation

Environmental Matters. Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. As an owner of correctional and detention facilities,

28

Table of Contents

we have been subject to these laws, rules, ordinances and regulations. In addition, we are also subject to these laws, ordinances and regulations as the result of our, and our subsidiaries’, operation and management of correctional and detention facilities. The cost of complying with environmental laws could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Phase I environmental assessments have been obtained on substantially all of the facilities we currently own. The purpose of a Phase I environmental assessment is to identify potential environmental contamination that is made apparent from historical reviews of such facilities, review of certain public records, visual investigations of the sites and surrounding properties, toxic substances and underground storage tanks. The Phase I environmental assessment reports do not reveal any environmental contamination that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, assets, results of operations or liquidity, nor are we aware of any such liability. Nevertheless, it is possible that these reports do not reveal all environmental liabilities or that there are material environmental liabilities of which we are unaware. In addition, environmental conditions on properties we own may affect the operation or expansion of facilities located on the properties.

Business Regulations. The industry in which we operate is subject to extensive federal, state and local regulations, including educational, health care and safety regulations, which are administered by many regulatory authorities. Some of the regulations are unique to the corrections industry, and the combination of regulations we face is unique. Facility management contracts typically include reporting requirements, supervision and on-site monitoring by representatives of the contracting governmental agencies. 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 subject to background investigation. Certain jurisdictions also require us to award subcontracts on a competitive basis or to subcontract with businesses owned by members of minority groups. Our facilities are also subject to operational and financial audits by the governmental agencies with which we have contracts. We may not always successfully comply with these regulations, and failure to comply can result in material penalties or non-renewal or termination of facility management contracts.

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. 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, there can be no assurance that future legislation would not have such an effect.

Americans with Disabilities Act. The correctional and detention facilities we operate and manage are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” but generally requires that public facilities such as correctional and detention facilities be made accessible to people with disabilities. These requirements became effective in 1992. We continue to monitor our facilities for compliance with the ADA in order to conform to its requirements. Compliance with the ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers and other modifications or capital improvements at the facilities. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Although we believe we are in compliance, any additional expenditures incurred in order to comply with the ADA at our facilities, if required, would not have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.

29

Table of Contents

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. In 1996, Congress enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA. HIPAA is designed to improve the portability and continuity of health insurance coverage and simplify the administration of health insurance. Certain regulations promulgated by HIPAA become effective in April 2003 and require health care providers to institute physical and procedural safeguards to protect the health records of patients and insureds. Examples of mandated safeguards include requirements that notices of the entity’s privacy practices be sent and that patients and insureds be given the right to access and request amendments to their records. Authorizations are required before a provider, insurer or clearinghouse can use health information for marketing and certain other purposes. Additionally, health plans are required to electronically transmit and receive standardized healthcare information. These regulations will require the implementation of compliance training and awareness programs for our healthcare service providers associated with healthcare we provide to inmates, and selected other employees primarily associated with our employee medical plans.

Insurance

We maintain a general liability insurance policy of $5.0 million for each facility we operate, as well as insurance in amounts we deem adequate to cover property and casualty risks, workers’ compensation and directors and officers liability. In addition, each of our leases with third-parties provides that the lessee will maintain insurance on each leased property under the lessee’s insurance policies providing for the following coverages: (i) fire, vandalism and malicious mischief, extended coverage perils, and all physical loss perils; (ii) comprehensive general public liability (including personal injury and property damage); and (iii) workers’ compensation. Under each of these leases, we have the right to periodically review our lessees’ insurance coverage and provide input with respect thereto.

Insurance expense represents a significant component of our operating expenses. Each of our management contracts and the statutes of certain states require the maintenance of insurance. We maintain various insurance policies including employee health, workers’ compensation, automobile liability and general liability insurance. Because we are significantly self-insured for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile liability insurance, the amount of our insurance expense is dependent on claims experience and our ability to control our claims experience. Our insurance policies contain various deductibles and stop-loss amounts intended to limit our exposure for individually significant occurrences. However, the nature of our self-insurance policies provides little protection for a deterioration in overall claims experience in general. We continue to incur increasing insurance expense due to adverse claims experience. We are developing a strategy to improve the management of our future loss claims but can provide no assurance that this strategy will be successful. Additionally, general liability insurance costs have risen substantially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Unanticipated additional insurance expenses resulting from adverse claims experience or a continued increasing cost environment for general liability insurance could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows.

Employees

As of December 31, 2002, we employed 13,350 employees. Of such employees, 194 were employed at our corporate offices and 13,156 were employed at our facilities and in our inmate transportation business. We employ personnel in the following areas: clerical and administrative, including facility administrators/wardens, security, food service, medical, transportation and scheduling, maintenance, teachers, counselors and other support services.

30

Table of Contents

Each of the correctional and detention facilities we currently operate is managed as a separate operational unit by the facility administrator or warden. All of these facilities follow a standardized code of policies and procedures.

We have not experienced a strike or work stoppage at any of our facilities. Approximately 1,100 employees at seven of our facilities are represented by labor unions. This number includes approximately 600 employees at two facilities who, during the first half of 2002 elected to be represented by a union. At this time, negotiations with these unions are ongoing. In the opinion of management, overall employee relations are generally considered good.

Competition

The correctional and detention facilities we operate and manage, as well as those facilities we own and are managed by other operators, are subject to competition for inmates from other private prison managers. We compete primarily on the basis of the quality and range of services offered, our experience in the operation and management of correctional and detention facilities and our reputation. We compete with government agencies that are responsible for correctional facilities and a number of privatized correctional service companies including, but not limited to, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, and Cornell Companies, Inc. Other potential competitors may in the future enter into businesses competitive with us without a substantial capital investment or prior experience. Competition by other companies may adversely affect the number of inmates at our facilities, which could have a material adverse effect on the operating revenue of our facilities. In addition, revenue derived from our facilities will be affected by a number of factors, including the demand for inmate beds, general economic conditions and the age of the general population.

Risk Factors

As the owner and operator of correctional and detention facilities, we are subject to certain risks and uncertainties associated with, among other things, the corrections and detention industry and pending or threatened litigation involving us. In addition, we are also currently subject to certain tax related risks, and risks associated with our indebtedness. These risks and uncertainties set forth below could 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 and uncertainties not currently known to us or those we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business operations. Any of the following risks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

We Are Subject to Risks Associated with the Corrections and Detention Industry

General. We currently operate 59 correctional and detention facilities, including 38 that we own. The facilities we manage have a total design capacity of approximately 59,000 beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Accordingly, we are subject to the operating risks associated with the corrections and detention industry, including those set forth below.

We are subject to fluctuations in occupancy levels. While a substantial portion of our cost structure is fixed, a substantial portion of our revenues is generated under facility management contracts that specify per-diem payments based upon occupancy. Under a per-diem rate structure, a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in revenue and profitability. Average compensated occupancy for our facilities in operation for 2002 and 2001 was 89.6% and 88.4%, respectively, for

31

Table of Contents

all of the facilities we owned or managed, exclusive of those discontinued. Occupancy rates may, however, decrease below these levels in the future.

We are subject to the termination or non-renewal of our government contracts. We typically enter into facility management contracts with governmental entities for terms of up to five years, with additional renewal periods at the option of the contracting governmental agency. Notwithstanding any contractual renewal option of a contracting governmental agency, 37 of the facility management contracts with our primary customers are currently scheduled to expire on or before December 31, 2003. See “Business — Facility Portfolio — Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” One or more of these contracts may not be renewed by the corresponding governmental agency. In addition, these and any other contracting agencies may determine not to exercise renewal options with respect to any of our contracts in the future. Governmental agencies typically may also terminate a facility contract at any time without cause. In the event any of our management contracts are terminated or are not renewed on favorable terms or otherwise, we may not be able to obtain additional replacement contracts. The non-renewal or termination of any of our contracts with governmental agencies could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity, including our ability to secure new facility management contracts from others.

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. While there are barriers to entering the market for the management of correctional and detention facilities, these barriers may not be sufficient to limit additional competition. 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 their facilities, may take inmates currently housed in our facilities and transfer them to government run facilities. Since we are paid on a per-diem basis with no minimum guaranteed occupancy under certain of our contracts, the loss of such inmates and resulting decrease in occupancy would cause a decrease in our revenues and profitability. Further, many of our state customers are currently experiencing budget difficulties. These budget difficulties could result in decreases to our per-diem rates, which could cause a decrease in our revenues and profitability.

We are dependent on government appropriations. Our cash flow is subject to the receipt of sufficient funding of and timely payment by contracting governmental entities. If the appropriate 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 an adverse effect on our cash flow and financial condition. In addition, as a result of, among other things, recent economic developments, federal, state and local governments have encountered, and may 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. Accordingly, we may be requested in the future to reduce our existing per-diem contract rates or forego prospective increases to those rates. In addition, it may become more difficult to renew our existing contracts on favorable terms or otherwise.

Public resistance to privatization of correctional and detention facilities could result in our inability to obtain new contracts or the loss of existing contracts. The operation of correctional and detention facilities by private entities has not achieved complete acceptance by either governments or the public. The movement toward privatization of correctional and detention facilities has also encountered resistance from certain groups, such as labor unions and others that believe that correctional and detention facilities should only be operated by governmental agencies.

32

Table of Contents

Moreover, negative publicity about an escape, riot or other disturbance or perceived poor conditions at a privately managed facility may result in publicity adverse to the private corrections industry and us in general. Any of these occurrences or continued trends may make it more difficult for us to renew or maintain existing contracts or to obtain new contracts, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our ability to secure new contracts to develop and manage correctional and detention facilities depends on many factors outside our control. Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities. This depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates and sentencing patterns in various jurisdictions and acceptance of privatization. The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the legal decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted and sentenced, 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.

Moreover, certain jurisdictions recently have required successful bidders to make a significant capital investment in connection with the financing of a particular project, a trend that will require us to have sufficient capital resources to compete effectively. We may not be able to obtain these capital resources when needed. 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.

Failure to comply with unique and increased governmental regulations could result in material penalties or non-renewal or termination of our contracts to manage correctional and detention facilities. The industry in which we operate is subject to extensive federal, state and local regulations, including educational, health care and safety regulations, which are administered by many regulatory authorities. Some of the regulations are unique to the corrections industry, and the combination of regulations we face is unique. Facility management contracts typically include reporting requirements, supervision and on-site monitoring by representatives of the contracting governmental agencies. 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 subject to background investigation. Certain jurisdictions also require us to award subcontracts on a competitive basis or to subcontract with businesses owned by members of minority groups. Our facilities are also subject to operational and financial audits by the governmental agencies with which we have contracts. We may not always successfully comply with these regulations, and failure to comply can result in material penalties or non-renewal or termination of facility management contracts.

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.

33

Table of Contents

Governmental agencies may investigate and audit our contracts and, if any improprieties are found, we may be required to refund revenues we have received, or to forego anticipated revenues and we may be subject to penalties and sanctions, including prohibitions on our bidding in response to RFPs. Certain of the governmental agencies we contract with have the authority to audit and investigate our contracts with them. As part of that process, government 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.

We depend on a limited number of governmental customers for a significant portion of our revenues. We currently derive, and expect to continue to derive, a significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of governmental agencies. The loss of, or a significant decrease in, business from the BOP, INS or USMS or various state agencies could seriously harm our financial condition and results of operations. The three federal governmental agencies with correctional and detention responsibilities, the BOP, INS and USMS, accounted for approximately 32% of our total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, with the BOP and the USMS accounting for approximately 14% and 11%, respectively, of our total revenues for such period. 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.

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 John D. Ferguson, our President and Chief Executive Officer. The unexpected loss of any of these persons could materially adversely affect our business and operations.

In addition, the services we provide are labor-intensive. When we are awarded a facility management contract or open a new facility, we must hire operating management, correctional officers and other 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 adversely affect our business and operations.

We are subject to necessary insurance costs.

Workers’ compensation, employee health and general liability insurance represent significant costs to us. We continue to incur increasing insurance costs due to adverse claims experience and rising healthcare costs in general. In addition, since the events of September 11, 2001, and due to concerns over corporate governance and recent corporate accounting scandals, liability and other types of insurance have become more difficult and costly to obtain. Unanticipated additional insurance costs could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows, and the failure to obtain or maintain any necessary insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on us.

34

Table of Contents

We may be 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. If, due to inflation or other causes, our operating expenses, such as wages and salaries of our employees, and insurance, medical and food costs, increase at rates faster than increases, if any, in our management fees, then our profitability would be adversely affected. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Inflation”.

We are subject to legal proceedings associated with owning and managing correctional and detention facilities.

Our ownership and management of correctional and detention facilities, and the provision of inmate transportation services by a subsidiary, expose us to potential third party claims or litigation by prisoners or other persons relating to personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with a facility, its managers, personnel or other prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner’s escape from, or a disturbance or riot at, a facility we own or manage, or from the misconduct of our employees. To the extent the events serving as a basis for any potential claims are alleged or determined to constitute illegal or criminal activity, we could also be subject to criminal liability. Such liability could result in significant monetary fines and could affect our ability to bid on future contracts and retain our existing contracts. In addition, as an owner of real property, we may be subject to a variety of proceedings relating to personal injuries of persons at such facilities. The claims against our facilities may be significant and may not be covered by insurance. Even in cases covered by insurance, our deductible may be significant.

We are subject to tax related risks.

The IRS has recently completed auditing our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 2000. The IRS has proposed an adjustment to the 2000 tax return that, if ultimately upheld by the Appeals Office of the IRS, would require us to make cash payments to the IRS in excess of $56.0 million, not including penalties and interest. See “Legal Proceedings — Income Tax Contingencies” for a further description of this matter. While we believe that we have sufficient liquidity available to satisfy any payments required to be made, in the event we are required to make payments in connection with such claim, the payments would reduce our working capital available to satisfy amounts due under the terms of our indebtedness. Any adjustment would also substantially eliminate our net operating loss carryforward, and would result in increased cash tax liabilities on taxable income thereafter.

On October 24, 2002, we entered into a definitive settlement with the IRS in connection with the IRS’s audit of our predecessor’s 1997 federal income tax return. Under the terms of the settlement, in consideration for the IRS’s final determinations with respect to the 1997 tax year, in December 2002 we paid approximately $52.2 million in cash to satisfy federal and state taxes and interest.

Due to a change in tax law created by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, which was signed into law in March 2002, the settlement created an opportunity to utilize any 2002 tax losses to claim a refund of a portion of the taxes paid. We experienced tax losses during 2002 primarily resulting from a cumulative effect of accounting change in depreciable lives for tax purposes. Under terms of the new law, we utilized our net operating losses to offset taxable income generated in 1997, which was increased substantially in connection with the settlement with the IRS. As a result of the tax law change in 2002, combined with the adoption of an accounting change in the depreciable lives of certain tax assets, we will be due an income tax refund of approximately $32.1

35

Table of Contents

million. The IRS could challenge the deduction associated with the change in depreciable lives of certain tax assets. The disallowance of all or a substantial portion of this deduction by the IRS would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and expected cash flows.

In addition, although the IRS has concluded its audit of our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 1999, the statute of limitations for such taxable year still has not expired. Thus, our election of REIT status for 1999 remains subject to review by the IRS generally until the expiration of three years from the date of filing of our 1999 federal tax return. Should the IRS subsequently disallow our election to be taxed as a REIT for the 1999 taxable year, we would be subject to income taxes and interest on our 1999 taxable income and possibly could be subject to penalties, which would have an adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

We are subject to risks associated with ownership of real estate.

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, it is possible to experience losses which exceed the limits of insurance coverage.

Certain of our facilities are subject to options to purchase and reversions. Ten of our facilities are or will be subject to an option to purchase by governmental agencies. Such options are exercisable by the corresponding contracting governmental entity generally at any time during the term of the respective facility management contract. See “Business — Facility Portfolio — Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” If any of these options are exercised, there exists the risk that we will be unable to invest the proceeds from the sale of the facility in one or more properties that yield as much cash flow as the property acquired by the government entity. In addition, in the event any of these options are exercised, there exists the risk that the contracting governmental agency will terminate the management contract associated with such facility. For the year ended December 31, 2002, the facilities subject to these options generated approximately $172.4 million in revenue and incurred approximately $136.8 million in operating expenses.

In addition, ownership of three of our facilities (including two of which also are subject to options to purchase) will, upon the expiration of certain ground leases with remaining terms generally ranging from 13 to 15 years, revert to the respective governmental agency contracting with us. See “Business — Facility Portfolio — Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” At the time of such reversion, there exists the risk that the contracting governmental agency will terminate the management contract associated with such facility. For the year ended December 31, 2002, the facilities subject to reversion generated approximately $60.6 million in revenue and incurred approximately $51.8 million in operating expenses.

36

Table of Contents

We are subject to risks associated with our indebtedness.

Our substantial indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under our debt securities or the terms of our preferred stock. We have a significant amount of indebtedness. As of December 31, 2002, we had total indebtedness of approximately $956.0 million, which was increased by $30.0 million in January 2003 in connection with the acquisition of the Crowley County Correctional Facility. Our substantial indebtedness could have important consequences to you. For example, it could:

	•		increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
	•		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;
	•		place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt; and
	•		limit our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance existing indebtedness on favorable terms.

Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and other debt instruments have restrictive covenants that could affect our financial condition. Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and 9.875% Senior Notes contain financial and other restrictive covenants that limit our ability to engage in activities that may be in our long-term best interests. Our ability to borrow under our New Senior Bank Credit Facility is subject to financial covenants, including leverage, interest rate and fixed charge coverage ratios. Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility limits our ability to effect mergers, asset sales and change of control events. These covenants also contain restrictions regarding our ability to make capital expenditures in the future. The indenture related to the 9.875% Senior Notes also contain limitations on our ability to effect mergers and change of control events, as well as other limitations, including:

	•		limitations on incurring additional indebtedness;
	•		limitations on the sale of assets;
	•		limitations on the declaration and payment of dividends or other restricted payments;
	•		limitations on transactions with affiliates; and
	•		limitations on liens.

Our failure to comply with these covenants could result in an event of default which, if not cured or waived, could result in the acceleration of all of our debts. We do not have sufficient working capital to satisfy our debt obligations in the event of an acceleration of all or a significant portion of our outstanding indebtedness.

37

Table of Contents

Despite current indebtedness levels, we may still incur more debt. This could further exacerbate the risks described above. Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and 9.875% Senior Notes restrict our ability to incur significant additional indebtedness in the future. However, in the future we may refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness, including our New Senior Bank Credit Facility, and incur more indebtedness as a result. If new debt is added to our and our subsidiaries’ current debt levels, the related risks that we and they now face could intensify. As of December 31, 2002, we had $58.0 million available for borrowing under the $75.0 million revolving portion of our New Senior Bank Credit Facility (due to $17.0 million of letters of credit outstanding under a sub-facility of the revolving portion of the New Senior Bank Credit Facility).

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 and to refinance 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.

The risk exists that our business will be unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will not be available to us under our New Senior Bank Credit Facility in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness, or to fund our other liquidity needs. We may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. We may not, however, be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Because portions of our indebtedness have floating rates, a general increase in interest rates will adversely affect cash flows. Our New Senior Bank Credit Facility bears interest at a variable rate. To the extent our exposure to increases in interest rates is not eliminated through interest rate protection or cap agreements, such increases will adversely affect our cash flows. In accordance with terms of the New Senior Bank Credit Facility, we have entered into an interest rate cap agreement capping LIBOR at 5.0% (prior to the applicable spread) on outstanding balances of $200.0 million through expiration of the cap agreement on May 20, 2004. There can be no assurance that these interest rate protection provisions will be effective, or that once the interest rate protection agreement expires, we will enter into additional interest rate protection agreements. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for a further discussion of our exposure to interest rate increases.

Our former independent public accountant, Arthur Andersen LLP, has been found guilty of federal obstruction of justice charges and you are unlikely to be able to exercise effective remedies against them in any legal action.

Our combined and consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2000, and for the year then ended were audited by Arthur Andersen. On March 14, 2002, Arthur Andersen was indicted on federal obstruction of justice charges arising from the federal government’s investigation of Enron Corporation. On June 15, 2002, a jury returned with a guilty verdict against Arthur Andersen following a trial. In light of the jury verdict and the underlying events, on August 31, 2002 Arthur Andersen ceased practicing before the SEC. However, we are including in Part IV of this Annual Report on Form 10-K the combined and consolidated financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen as of December 31, 2000, and for the year then ended. Arthur Andersen has not performed any procedures in connection with this Annual Report and has not consented to the inclusion of its report herein.

38

Table of Contents

In reliance on Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), we have not filed a consent of Arthur Andersen to the inclusion in this Annual Report of their report regarding our financial statements. Because Arthur Andersen has not consented to the inclusion of its report herein, you will not be able to recover against Arthur Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions to state a material fact required to be stated therein. Furthermore, relief in connection with claims that may be available to stockholders under the federal securities laws against auditing firms may not be available to stockholders as a practical matter against Arthur Andersen because it no longer operates as an accounting firm.

Moreover, as a public company, we are required to file with the SEC periodic financial statements audited or reviewed by an independent public accountant. The SEC has said that it will continue accepting financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen on an interim basis so long as a reasonable effort is made to have Arthur Andersen reissue its reports and to obtain a manually signed accountant’s report from Arthur Andersen. Arthur Andersen has informed us that it is no longer able to reissue its audit reports because both the partner and the audit manager who were assigned to our account have left the firm. In addition, Arthur Andersen is unable to perform procedures to assure the continued accuracy of its report on our audited financial statements included in this Annual Report. Arthur Andersen will also be unable to perform such procedures or to provide other information or documents that would customarily be received by us or underwriters in connection with financings or other transactions, including consents and “comfort” letters. As a result, we may encounter delays, additional expense and other difficulties in future financings. Any resulting delay in accessing or inability to access the public capital markets could have a material adverse effect on us.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES.

The properties we owned at December 31, 2002 are described under Item 1. and in Note 6 of the Notes to the Financial Statements contained in this annual report.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

General

The nature of our business results in claims and litigation alleging that we are liable for damages arising from the conduct of our employees or others. In the opinion of management, other than the litigation matters discussed below, there are no pending legal proceedings that would have a material effect on our consolidation financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Adversarial proceedings and litigation are, however, subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable decisions and rulings could occur which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which such decisions and rulings occur, or future periods. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to our Business — We are subject to legal proceedings associated with owning and managing correctional and detention facilities” and “-We are subject to tax related risks.”

39

Table of Contents

Litigation

During the second quarter of 2002, we completed the settlement of certain claims made against us as the successor to U.S. Corrections Corporation, or USCC, a privately-held owner and operator of correctional and detention facilities which was acquired by a predecessor of ours in April 1998, by participants in USCC’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan, referred to herein as the ESOP. As a result of the settlement, we made a cash payment of $575,000 to the plaintiffs in the action. As described below, we are currently in litigation with USCC’s insurer seeking to recover all or a portion of this settlement amount. The USCC ESOP litigation, entitled Horn v. McQueen, continued to proceed, however, against two other defendants, Milton Thompson and Robert McQueen, both of whom were stockholders and executive officers of USCC and trustees of the ESOP prior to our acquisition of USCC. In the Horn litigation, the ESOP participants allege numerous violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, including breaches of fiduciary duties to the ESOP by causing the ESOP to overpay for employer securities. The plaintiffs in the action are seeking damages in excess of $30.0 million plus prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees, although expert testimony in the litigation has indicated actual damages of significantly less than that. On July 29, 2002, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky found that McQueen and Thompson had breached their fiduciary duties to the ESOP, but made no determination as to the amount of any damages. It is not known when the Court will make a finding with respect to damages.

In or about the second quarter of 2001, Northfield Insurance Co., the issuer of the liability insurance policy to USCC and its directors and officers, filed suit against McQueen, Thompson and us seeking a declaration that it did not owe coverage under the policy for any liabilities arising from the Horn litigation. Among other things, Northfield claimed that it did not receive timely notice of the litigation under the terms of the policy. McQueen and Thompson subsequently filed a cross-claim in the Northfield litigation against us, claiming that, as the result of our failure to timely notify the insurance carrier of the Horn case on their behalf, they were entitled to indemnification or contribution from us for any loss incurred by them as a result of the Horn litigation if there were no insurance available to cover the loss, if any. On September 30, 2002, the Court in the Northfield litigation found that Northfield was not obligated to cover McQueen and Thompson or us. Though it did not resolve the cross-claim, the Court did note that there was no basis for excusing McQueen and Thompson from their obligation to provide timely notice to the carrier because of our alleged failure to provide timely notice to the carrier. Upon the entry of a final order by the Court, we intend to appeal the Court’s decision that Northfield is not obligated to provide coverage, and we intend to continue to defend our position that coverage is required.

We cannot currently predict whether or not we will be successful in recovering all or a portion of the amount we have paid in settlement of the Horn litigation. With respect to the cross-claim of McQueen and Thompson, we believe that such cross-claim is without merit and that we will be able to defend ourselves successfully against such claim and/or any additional claims of such nature that may be brought in the future. No assurance can be given, however, that McQueen and Thompson will not prevail in any such claims.

Income Tax Contingencies

In connection with the merger with Old CCA on December 31, 1998, we assumed the tax obligations of Old CCA. The IRS has completed field audits of Old CCA’s federal tax returns for the taxable years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997, and has also completed auditing our federal tax return for the taxable years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999. In addition, the IRS has recently commenced an audit of our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 2001.

40

Table of Contents

The IRS agent’s report related to 1998 and 1997 included a determination by the IRS to increase taxable income by approximately $120.0 million. We appealed the IRS’s findings with the Appeals Office of the IRS. On October 24, 2002 we entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the IRS in connection with the IRS’s audit of Old CCA’s 1997 federal income tax return. Under the terms of the settlement, in consideration for the IRS’s final determinations with respect to the 1997 tax year, in December 2002 we paid approximately $52.2 million in cash to satisfy federal and state taxes and interest.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the audit adjustments agreed to for the 1997 tax year did not trigger any additional distribution requirements in order to preserve our status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes for 1999. The adjustments will, however, serve to increase our accumulated earnings and profits in 2002 and therefore will affect the taxability of dividends paid on our Series A and Series B Preferred Stock in 2002 and later years.

We are continuing to appeal the IRS’s findings with respect to the IRS’s audit of Old CCA’s 1998 federal income tax return. Although we can provide no assurance, we do not currently expect that the resolution of the 1998 audit will have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or results of operations.

In connection with the IRS’s audit of our 2000 federal tax return, the IRS has proposed the disallowance of a loss we claimed as the result of our forgiveness in September 2000 of certain indebtedness of Operating Company. This finding is currently being protested with the Appeals Office of the IRS. In the event that, after we seek all available remedies, the IRS prevails, we would be required to pay the IRS in excess of $56.0 million in cash plus penalties and interest. This adjustment would also substantially eliminate our net operating loss carryforward, and would result in increased cash tax liabilities on taxable income thereafter. We believe that we have meritorious defenses of our positions. We have not established a reserve for this matter. However, the IRS may make such an assessment and prevail in any such claim against us.

Because the audit of our federal tax return for the taxable year ended December 31, 2001 has only recently commenced, it is too early to predict the outcome of such audit.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

None.

PART II.

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR OUR COMMON STOCK AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS.

Market Price of and Distributions on Capital Stock

Our common stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “CXW,” our series A preferred stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “CXW PrA,” and our series B preferred stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “CXW PrB.” On March 18, 2003, the last reported sale price of our common stock was $18.30 per share and there were approximately 5,800 registered holders and approximately 28,000 beneficial holders, respectively, of our common stock.

41

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth, for the fiscal quarters indicated, the range of high and low sales prices of the common stock, the series A preferred stock, and the series B preferred stock on the NYSE, and the amount of cash distributions or dividends paid per share.

Common Stock

Series A Preferred Stock

Series B Preferred Stock

Dividend Policy

Pursuant to the terms of our New Senior Bank Credit Facility, we are restricted from declaring or paying cash dividends with respect to outstanding shares of our common stock. Moreover, even if such restriction is ultimately removed, we do not intend to pay dividends with respect to shares of our common stock in the future.

42

Table of Contents

Our series A preferred stock provides for quarterly cash dividends at a rate of 8.0% per year, based on a liquidation price of $25.00 per share. We are permitted to pay these dividends under the terms of our New Senior Bank Credit Facility and our other indebtedness. Under the terms of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, however, prior to the third quarter of 2001, we were prohibited from paying any dividends with respect to the series A preferred stock until such time as we had raised $100.0 million in equity.

During the third quarter of 2001, we received a consent and waiver to our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility which allowed us to declare a one-time quarterly dividend on shares of series A preferred stock. Accordingly, on September 28, 2001, our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock for the first quarter of previously accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares, payable on October 15, 2001 to the holders of record of our series A preferred stock on October 5, 2001.

Subsequently, on December 7, 2001, we completed an amendment and restatement of our Old Senior Bank Credit Facility. In connection with this amendment and restatement, certain financial and non-financial covenants were amended, including the removal of the prior restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends on shares of our series A preferred stock. Under the terms of the December 2001 amendment and restatement, we were permitted to pay quarterly dividends on the series A preferred stock, including all dividends in arrears. Accordingly, following the December 2001 amendment and restatement, on December 13, 2001 our board of directors declared a cash dividend on the shares of series A preferred stock for the fourth quarter of 2001 and all five quarters of previously accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares, payable on January 15, 2002 to the holders of record of our series A preferred stock on December 31, 2001. The dividend was paid on January 15, 2002. We have since declared and paid a cash dividend each quarter at a rate of 8% per year, based on the liquidation price of $25.00 per share.

Our shares of series B preferred stock provide for quarterly dividends at a rate of 12.0% per year, based on a stated value of $24.46 per share. The dividends are payable quarterly in arrears, in additional shares of series B preferred stock through the third quarter of 2003, and in cash thereafter, provided that all accrued and unpaid cash dividends have been made on our series A preferred stock.

Sale of Unregistered Securities and Use of Proceeds from Sale of Registered Securities

Sale of Unregistered Securities

The following description sets forth our sales or other issuances of unregistered securities during the past three years. Unless otherwise indicated, all securities were issued and sold in private placements pursuant to the exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, contained in Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. Except for the issuance of the 9.875% Senior Notes described below, no underwriters were engaged in connection with the issuances of securities described below.

9.875% Senior Notes. In connection with the comprehensive refinancing of our senior indebtedness in May 2002, we issued $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of 9.875% senior notes due 2009 in a private placement to a group of initial purchasers. The proceeds of the offering were used to repay a portion of amounts outstanding under the Old Senior Bank Credit Facility, to redeem approximately $89.2 million of our 12% Senior Notes pursuant to a tender offer and consent solicitation, and to pay related fees and expenses. See “Business — Capital Strategy” for further information regarding the refinancing.

43

Table of Contents

On July 18, 2002, pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Registration Rights Agreement dated as of May 3, 2002, we filed a registration statement with the SEC relating to an offer to exchange the 9.875% Senior Notes and related guarantees that were originally issued in the private placement for publicly tradable notes and guarantees on substantially identical terms. The Registration Rights Agreement required us to cause the registration statement to be declared effective by the SEC within 180 days from the date of the original issuance of the 9.875% Senior Notes. The SEC declared the registration statement effective January 3, 2003, and the exchange offer was completed on February 8, 2003. As a result, of the delay, we paid $0.1 million in liquidated damages to the holders of the notes.

MDP Convertible Subordinated Notes. Pursuant to the terms of a note purchase agreement, dated as of December 31, 1998, with MDP, we issued the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes. The first $20.0 million tranche closed on December 31, 1998, and the second $20.0 million tranche closed on January 29, 1999, resulting in aggregate proceeds of $40.0 million. See “Business — Capital Strategy” for a description of the conversion rate applicable to the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes.

In connection with the waiver and amendment to the note purchase agreement governing the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes, on June 30, 2000 we also issued, on a pro-rata basis to the holders of the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes, additional convertible subordinated notes in the aggregate principal amount of $1.1 million, which amount represented all accrued but unpaid interest upon the $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes, at an applicable default rate of interest, through June 30, 2000. Under the terms of these additional notes, in January 2002, MDP elected to convert the $1.1 million convertible subordinated notes into approximately 0.1 million shares of common stock.

Issuance and Conversion of Series B Preferred Stock. On September 22, 2000, we issued an aggregate of approximately 5.9 million shares of series B preferred stock as a taxable dividend, exempt from registration under the Securities Act, on shares of our common stock in connection with our election to be taxed as a REIT for federal income tax purposes with respect to our 1999 taxable year. On November 13, 2000, we issued an additional 1.6 million shares of series B preferred stock as a taxable dividend, exempt from registration under the Securities Act, in further satisfaction of our 1999 REIT distribution requirements. An aggregate of 4.2 million shares of series B preferred stock were converted into approximately 9.5 million shares of our common during the following two conversion periods: (i) October 2, 2000 through October 12, 2000; and (ii) December 7, 2000 through December 20, 2000. During 2002 and 2001, we issued approximately 484,000 and 452,000 shares, respectively, of series B preferred stock in satisfaction of the regular quarterly paid-in-kind dividends on the series B preferred stock.

On May 22, 2001, we issued 0.2 million shares of series B preferred stock under two series B preferred stock restricted stock plans, which were valued at $2.0 million on the date of the award. The restricted shares of series B preferred stock were granted to certain of our key employees and wardens. Under the terms of the series B preferred stock restricted stock plans, the shares in the key employee plan vest in equal intervals over a three-year period expiring in May 2004, while the shares in the warden plan vest all at one time in May 2004.

Assumption of Operating Company Warrants. As a result of the corporate restructuring completed during the fourth quarter of 2000, effective October 1, 2000, we assumed Operating Company’s obligation to issue shares of its Class A common stock upon the exercise of certain common stock purchase warrants, dated as of December 31, 1998. As a result of this assumption, we became obligated to issue, upon exercise of the warrants, an aggregate of: (i) approximately 50,046

44

Table of Contents

shares of our common stock to G.E. Capital Corporation and (ii) an aggregate of approximately 25,023 shares of our common stock to Bank of America. The warrants, which have an exercise price of $33.30 per share, expire December 31, 2008.

Service Company Mergers. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and plan of merger with each of PMSI and JJFMSI, we issued an aggregate of approximately 0.3 million shares of our common stock to the employee shareholders of PMSI and JJFMSI at the time of the completion of the service company mergers.

Issuances to Directors. On October 2, 2000, we issued approximately 3,111 shares of common stock to one of our directors in connection with such director’s service on the special committee of our board of directors. These shares of common stock were valued based on then existing market prices of the common stock on the NYSE. We received no cash proceeds from the issuance of these shares of common stock.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.

The following selected financial data for the five years ended December 31, 2002, were derived from our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto. Our audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000 are included in this annual report. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Overview” for a discussion of the factors that affect the comparability of the following financial data.

45

Table of Contents

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION
(in thousands, except per share data)