UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-Q

Commission File Number: 0-20135

AMERICA SERVICE GROUP INC.

(615) 373-3100
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed under 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 o

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

     There were 7,167,866 shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding as of August 3, 2004.

AMERICA SERVICE GROUP INC.

QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
INDEX

2

PART I:

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AMERICA SERVICE GROUP INC.

The accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
are an integral part of these balance sheets. The condensed consolidated balance sheet at
December 31, 2003 is taken from the audited financial statements at that date.

3

AMERICA SERVICE GROUP INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

The accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements are an
integral part of these statements.

4

AMERICA SERVICE GROUP INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

The accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements are an
integral part of these statements.

5

AMERICA SERVICE GROUP INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. Basis of Presentation

     The interim condensed consolidated financial statements of America Service Group Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) as of June 30, 2004 and for the quarters and six month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 are unaudited, but in the opinion of management, have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States applied on a basis consistent with those of the annual audited consolidated financial statements. Such interim condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position and the results of operations for the quarters and six month periods presented. The results of operations for the quarters and six month periods presented are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the year ending December 31, 2004. The interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in connection with the audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003 available in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.

2. Description of Business

     The Company provides managed healthcare services to correctional facilities under contracts with state and local governments, certain private entities and a medical facility operated by the Veterans Administration. The health status of inmates impacts the results of operations under such contractual arrangements. In addition to providing managed healthcare services, the Company also provides pharmaceutical distribution services through one of its operating subsidiaries, Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC.

3. Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncement

     In December 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (“FIN 46”). This interpretation addresses consolidation by business enterprises of variable interest entities when certain characteristics are present. The Company adopted the provisions of FIN 46 effective January 1, 2004. Such adoption did not impact the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

4. Settlement of Florida Legal Matter

     On March 30, 2004, EMSA Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of the Company, which was acquired in January 1999, entered into a settlement agreement with the Florida Attorney General’s office, related to allegations, first raised in connection with an investigation of EMSA Correctional Services (“EMSA”) in 1997, that the Company may have played an indirect role in the improper billing of Medicaid by independent providers treating incarcerated patients.

     The settlement agreement with the Florida Attorney General’s office constitutes a complete resolution and settlement of the claims asserted against EMSA and required EMSA Limited Partnership to pay $5.0 million to the State of Florida. This payment was made by the Company on March 30, 2004. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company and all of its subsidiaries are released from liability for any alleged actions which might have occurred from December 1, 1998 to March 31, 2004. Both parties entered into the settlement agreement to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience and expense of protracted litigation. The settlement agreement states that it is not punitive in purpose or effect, it should not be construed or used as admission of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, and that EMSA specifically denies intentionally submitting any medical claims in violation of state or federal law.

6

     The Company recorded a charge of $5.2 million in its results of operations for the first quarter of 2004, reflecting the settlement agreement with the Florida Attorney General’s office and related legal expenses.

5. Stock Options

     The Company has elected to follow Accounting Principles Board Opinion (“APB”) No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and related Interpretations in accounting for its employee stock options. Under APB No. 25, compensation expense is generally recognized as the difference between the exercise price of the Company’s employee stock options and the market price of the underlying stock on the date of grant.

     Pro forma information regarding net income and earnings per share is required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (“SFAS No. 123”), which also requires that the information be determined as if the Company has accounted for its employee stock options granted subsequent to December 31, 1994 under the fair value method of SFAS No. 123. The fair value of options issued during 2004 and 2003 was estimated at the date of grant using a Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted-average assumptions:

     The following table illustrates the effect on net income per common share as if the Company had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 for each of the quarters and six month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 (in thousands except per share data):

     The resulting pro forma disclosures may not be representative of that to be expected in future years. The weighted average fair value of options granted during the quarter and six month period ended June 30, 2003 as determined under the fair value provisions of SFAS No. 123 is $9.33. The weighted average fair value of options granted during the quarter and six month periods ended June 30, 2004 as determined under the fair value provisions of SFAS No. 123 is $21.90. The above pro forma adjustments do not include any offsetting income tax benefits due to the Company’s use of a tax valuation allowance during the periods presented.

7

6. Discontinued Operations

     In August 2001, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets (“SFAS No. 144”). SFAS No. 144 expanded the scope of financial accounting and reporting of discontinued operations to require that all components of an entity that have either been disposed of (by sale, by abandonment, or in a distribution to owners) or are held for sale and whose operations and cash flows can be clearly distinguished, operationally and for financial reporting purposes from the rest of the entity, should be presented as discontinued operations. The provisions for presenting the components of an entity as discontinued operations are effective only for disposal activities after the effective date of SFAS No. 144. The Company adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 144 effective January 1, 2002. Pursuant to SFAS No. 144, each of the Company’s correctional healthcare services contracts is a component of an entity, whose operations can be distinguished from the rest of the Company. Therefore, when a correctional healthcare services contract terminates, by expiration or otherwise, the contract’s operations generally will be eliminated from the ongoing operations of the Company and classified as discontinued operations. Accordingly, the operations of such contracts, that have expired during 2004 and 2003, net of applicable income taxes, have been presented as discontinued operations and prior period Consolidated Statements of Operations have been reclassified.

     The components of income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes, are as follows (in thousands):

7. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets

     Prepaid expenses and other current assets are stated at amortized cost and comprised of the following (in thousands):

8. Property and Equipment

     Property and equipment are stated at cost and comprised of the following (in thousands):

     Depreciation expense for the quarters ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 was approximately $529,000 and $618,000, respectively. Depreciation expense for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 was approximately $1,051,000 and $1,262,000, respectively.

8

9. Other Assets

     Other assets are comprised of the following (in thousands):

10. Contracts and Other Intangible Assets

     The gross and net values of contracts and other intangible assets consist of the following (in thousands):

     Estimated aggregate amortization expense related to the above intangibles for the remainder of 2004 is $0.9 million and for each of the next four years is $1.8 million.

11. Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses

     Accounts payable consist of the following (in thousands):

     The noncurrent portion at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003 consists of $0 and approximately $1.7 million payable to Health Cost Solutions, Inc. (see Note 12) and approximately $47,000 and $27,000 of other noncurrent payables, respectively.

     Accrued expenses consist of the following (in thousands):

9

12. Reserve for Loss Contracts

     The Company accrues losses under its fixed price contracts when it is probable that a material loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company performs this loss accrual analysis on a specific contract basis taking into consideration such factors as future contractual revenue, projected future labor, pharmacy and healthcare costs, including hospitalization and outpatient services, and each contract’s specific terms related to risk-sharing arrangements. The projected future healthcare costs are estimated based on historical trends and management’s estimate of future cost increases.

     During the quarter ended June 30, 2003, the Company utilized its loss contract reserve at a rate greater than previously anticipated due to an unexpected increase in healthcare expenses associated with the Company’s contract to provide services to the Kansas Department of Corrections (the “Kansas DOC”). The primary causes for the increase in healthcare expenses in this contract were hospitalization and outpatient costs. The Company increased its reserve for loss contracts by $4.5 million, as of June 30, 2003, to cover estimated future losses under the Kansas DOC contract, which was to expire in June 2005.

     During the second and third quarters of 2003, the Company participated in active discussions with the Kansas DOC related to a proposal from the Company that would significantly reduce the remaining length of the current contract. In response to the proposal, the Kansas DOC solicited and received proposals from several other vendors to provide healthcare services to the Kansas DOC. After the Kansas DOC’s evaluation of the proposals from the other vendors, in August 2003, the Company began discussions with Health Cost Solutions, Inc. (“HCS”) and the Kansas DOC related to a proposal pursuant to which HCS would assume the Company’s performance obligation under the Kansas DOC contract.

     On August 22, 2003, the Company entered into an assignment and novation agreement with the Kansas DOC to assign the Kansas DOC contract to HCS effective October 1, 2003. The Company also entered into a general assignment, novation and assumption agreement with HCS to transfer the Kansas DOC contract to HCS, effective October 1, 2003. Beginning October 1, 2003, HCS became solely responsible for the performance of the Kansas DOC contract, and the Company has no obligation to the Kansas DOC or to HCS related to HCS’ performance of the contract, therefore the operating results of this contract have been reclassified to discontinued operations for all periods presented. Under the terms of the Company’s agreement with HCS, the Company will pay HCS net consideration of $5.6 million in 21 monthly installments, which commenced October 31, 2003 and will continue through June 30, 2005. As a result of the financial terms of the Company’s agreement with HCS, in the third quarter of 2003, the Company reclassified $6.5 million of its reserve for loss contracts to accounts payable and recorded a gain of $1.7 million, to reduce its reserve for loss contracts. The Company’s liability under this agreement has been classified as accounts payable and noncurrent payable to HCS on its consolidated balance sheets (see Note 11).

     As discussed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, the Company’s contract with the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“Maryland DPS”) has historically underperformed, fluctuating between minimal profitability, breakeven and losses. This contract was entered into on July 1, 2000, to provide comprehensive medical services to four regions of the Maryland prison system. The initial term of the contract was for the three years ended June 30, 2003, with the Maryland DPS having the ability to renew the contract for two additional one-year terms. The contract is presently in its second renewal term and is non-cancelable by the Company. The Maryland DPS pays the Company a flat fee per month with certain limited cost-sharing adjustments for staffing costs, primarily nurses, and the cost of medications related to certain specific illnesses. The Company is fully at risk for increases in hospitalization and outpatient costs under the terms of the contract with the Maryland DPS. The contract also contains provisions that allow the Maryland DPS to assess penalties if certain staffing or performance criteria are not maintained. The flat fee paid to the Company is increased annually based on a portion of the consumer price index.

     Due to the flat fee nature of this contract, the Company’s margin under the contract can be significantly impacted by changes in healthcare costs, utilization trends or inmate population. The Company incurred losses under this contract in April 2004 at a level slightly above expectations. The losses under the contract increased significantly in May 2004 to approximately $1.1 million for the month. The primary cause for the increased loss was an unanticipated increase in hospitalization costs beginning in May, resulting from the volume and acuity of

10

services being provided, the number of HIV and mental health patients and the costs associated with current treatment guidelines. Based upon the recent historical trends, the Company believes that expected hospitalization costs over the remaining term of the contract will cause losses to continue to be incurred. As a result, the Company recorded a pre-tax contract charge of $6.8 million, effective June 1, 2004, to cover estimated future losses and allocated corporate overhead under the Maryland DPS contract until its expiration in June 2005.

     As of June 30, 2004, the Company had a loss contract reserve totaling approximately $6.1 million, which relates to the Maryland DPS contract discussed above and a county contract. Negative gross margin and overhead costs charged against the loss contract reserve related to loss contracts, including contracts classified as discontinued operations, totaled approximately $1.4 and $2.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The amounts charged against the loss contract reserve during 2004 represent losses associated with the Maryland DPS contract and a county contract. The amounts charged against the loss contract reserve during 2003 relate to the Kansas DOC contract discussed above and a county contract.

     In the course of performing its reviews in future periods, the Company might revise its estimate of future losses related to the contracts currently identified as loss contacts. It might also identify additional contracts which have become loss contracts due to a change in circumstances. Circumstances that might change and result in a revised estimate of future losses or the identification of a contract as a loss contract in a future period include unanticipated adverse changes in the healthcare cost structure, inmate population or the utilization of outside medical services in a contract, where such changes are not offset by increased healthcare revenues. Should the Company identify circumstances that would result in a revision of its estimate of future losses for a loss contract, the Company would, in the period in which the revision is made, increase or decrease the reserve for loss contracts. Should a contract be identified as a loss contract in a future period, the Company would record, in the period in which such identification is made, a reserve for the estimated future losses that would be incurred under the contract. A revision to a current loss contract or the identification of a loss contract in the future could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations in the period in which the reserve is recorded.

13. Banking Arrangements

     On October 31, 2002, the Company entered into a new credit facility with CapitalSource Finance LLC (the “CapitalSource Credit Facility”). The CapitalSource Credit Facility matures on October 31, 2005 and includes both a $55.0 million revolving credit facility (the “Revolver”) and a $5.0 million term loan (the “Term Loan”). Proceeds from the CapitalSource Credit Facility were used to repay the borrowings outstanding pursuant to the Company’s previously existing revolving credit facility (the “Prior Credit Facility”), at which time the Company wrote off approximately $726,000 of deferred loan costs related to the Prior Credit Facility.

     The CapitalSource Credit Facility is secured by substantially all assets of the Company and its operating subsidiaries. At June 30, 2004, the Company had no borrowings outstanding under the Revolver and $33.8 million available for additional borrowing, based on the Company’s collateral base on that date and outstanding standby letters of credit.

     In June 2003, the Company and CapitalSource Finance LLC entered into an amendment to the CapitalSource Credit Facility. Under the terms of the amendment, the Company may have standby letters of credit issued under the loan agreement in amounts up to $10.0 million. The amount available to the Company for borrowings under the CapitalSource Credit Facility is reduced by the amount of each outstanding standby letter of credit. At June 30, 2004, the Company had outstanding standby letters of credit totaling $4.0 million, which were used to collateralize performance bonds.

     Borrowings under the Revolver are limited to the lesser of (1) 85% of eligible receivables (as defined in the Revolver) or (2) $55.0 million (the “Revolver Capacity”). Interest under the Revolver is payable monthly at the greater of 5.75% or the Citibank N.A. prime rate plus 1.0%. The Company is also required to pay a monthly collateral management fee, equal to an annual rate of 1.38%, on average borrowings outstanding under the Revolver. Additionally, the Company is required to pay a monthly letter of credit fee equal to an annual rate of 3.5% on the outstanding balance of letters of credit issued pursuant to the Revolver.

11

     Under the terms of the CapitalSource Credit Facility, the Company is required to pay a monthly unused line fee equal to an annual rate of 0.6% on the Revolver Capacity less the actual average borrowings outstanding under the Revolver for the month and the balance of any outstanding letters of credit.

     All amounts outstanding under the Revolver will be due and payable on October 31, 2005. If the Revolver is terminated prior to July 1, 2005, the Company will be required to pay an early termination fee equal to 1.0% of the Revolver Capacity. In connection with the Revolver, the CapitalSource Credit Facility requires a lockbox agreement, which provides for all cash receipts to be swept daily to reduce borrowings outstanding. This agreement, combined with the existence of a Material Adverse Effect (“MAE”) clause in the CapitalSource Credit Facility, requires the Revolver to be classified as a current liability, in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 95-22, Balance Sheet Classification of Borrowings Outstanding under Revolving Credit Agreements that Include Both a Subjective Acceleration Clause and a Lock-Box Arrangement. The MAE clause, which is a typical requirement in commercial credit agreements, allows the lender to require the loan to become due if the lender determines there has been a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations, business, properties, assets, liabilities, condition or prospects. The classification of the Revolver as a current liability is a result only of the combination of the two aforementioned factors: the lockbox agreements and the MAE clause. The Revolver does not expire or have a maturity date within one year. As discussed above, the Revolver has a final expiration date of October 31, 2005.

     At June 30, 2004, $2.4 million was outstanding under the Term Loan. The Term Loan requires monthly principal payments of approximately $139,000, through its maturity on October 31, 2005. Interest under the Term Loan is payable monthly at the greater of 8.5% or the Citibank, N.A. prime rate plus 3.5%. Upon expiration of the Term Loan, the Company will be required to pay a fee of $100,000.

     The CapitalSource Credit Facility requires the Company to meet certain financial covenants related to minimum levels of earnings. At June 30, 2004, the Company was in compliance with these covenants. The CapitalSource Credit Facility also contains restrictions on the Company with respect to certain types of transactions including acquisition of the Company’s own stock, payment of dividends, indebtedness and sales or transfers of assets.

     The Company is dependent on the availability of borrowings pursuant to the CapitalSource Credit Facility to meet its working capital needs, capital expenditure requirements and other cash flow requirements during 2004. Management believes that the Company can comply with the terms of the CapitalSource Credit Facility and meet its expected obligations throughout 2004. However, should the Company fail to meet its projected results, it may be forced to seek additional sources of financing in order to fund its working capital needs.

14. Income Taxes

     The Company accounts for income taxes under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes (“SFAS No. 109”). Under the asset and liability method of SFAS No. 109, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases.

     The Company regularly reviews its deferred tax assets for recoverability taking into consideration such factors as historical losses, projected future taxable income and the expected timing of the reversals of existing temporary differences. SFAS No. 109 requires the Company to record a valuation allowance when it is “more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.” It further states “forming a conclusion that a valuation allowance is not needed is difficult when there is negative evidence such as cumulative losses in recent years.” Since December 31, 2001 and until June 30, 2004, the Company has maintained a 100% valuation allowance equal to the deferred tax assets after considering deferred tax assets that can be realized through offsets to existing taxable temporary differences.

     Based upon the Company’s results of operations since December 31, 2001, and its expected profitability in this and future years, the Company has concluded, effective June 30, 2004, that it is more likely than not that substantially all of its net deferred tax assets will be realized. As a result, in accordance with SFAS No. 109,

12

substantially all of the valuation allowance applied to such net deferred tax assets has been reversed in the second quarter of 2004. Reversal of the valuation allowance resulted in a non-cash income tax benefit in the second quarter of 2004 totaling $5.3 million. This benefit represents the Company’s estimated realizable deferred tax assets, excluding those deferred tax assets that resulted from the exercise of employee stock options. The reversal of the valuation allowance that relates to the Company’s estimated realizable deferred tax assets resulting from the exercises of employee stock options totals $3.9 million and has been recorded as a direct increase to additional paid-in capital in the stockholders’ equity portion of the Company’s balance sheet as of June 30, 2004.

     As a result of the expected reversal of the valuation allowance, beginning with the third quarter of 2004, the Company expects to begin providing for an income tax provision at a rate on income before taxes equal to the combined federal and state effective tax rates, currently estimated to be 40 percent.

     In addition to the tax benefit discussed above, the Company’s income tax provision (benefit) includes a provision for state income taxes of approximately $295,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and a benefit for state income taxes of approximately $71,000 for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. The Company’s income tax provision for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2003 represents state income taxes due.

15. Professional and General Liability Self-insurance Retention

     The Company records a liability for reported and unreported professional and general liability claims. Amounts accrued were $18.4 and $18.3 million at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and non-current portion of accrued expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Changes in estimates of losses resulting from the continuous review process and differences between estimates and loss payments are recognized in the period in which the estimates are changed or payments are made. Reserves for professional and general liability exposures are subject to fluctuations in frequency and severity. Given the inherent degree of variability in any such estimates, the reserves reported at June 30, 2004 represent management’s best estimate of the amounts necessary to discharge the Company’s obligations.

16. Commitments and Contingencies

Catastrophic Limits

     Many of the Company’s contracts require the Company’s customers to reimburse the Company for all treatment costs or, in some cases, only out-of-pocket treatment costs related to certain catastrophic events, and/or for AIDS or AIDS-related illnesses. Certain contracts do not contain such limits. The Company attempts to compensate for the increased financial risk when pricing contracts that do not contain individual, catastrophic or specific disease diagnosis-related limits. However, the occurrence of severe individual cases, AIDS-related illnesses or a catastrophic event in a facility governed by a contract without such limitations could render the contract unprofitable and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations. For contracts that do not contain catastrophic protection, the Company maintains insurance from an unaffiliated insurer for annual hospitalization amounts in excess of $500,000 per inmate up to an annual per inmate cap of $2.0 million. The Company believes this insurance helps mitigate its exposure to unanticipated expenses of catastrophic hospitalization. Catastrophic insurance premiums and recoveries, neither of which is significant, are included in healthcare expenses. Receivables for insurance recoveries, which are not significant, are included in accounts receivable.

Litigation and Claims

     EMSA lease matter. On July 12, 2004, EMSA Limited Partnership, a limited partnership owned by the Company, received an unexpected adverse jury verdict in the Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida of approximately $1.2 million plus potential interest. This verdict relates to a 12 year old case filed by the plaintiff, Community Health Related Services, Inc. (wholly owned by Dr. Carlos Vicaria) seeking unspecified damages involving a lease dispute in connection with a line of business managing physician clinics operated by EMSA Limited Partnership prior to its acquisition by the Company in 1999. The Company did not acquire this line of business or assume the expired sublease from the seller under the transaction. The Company has, to date, been forced to defend the case as the seller has not yet assumed

13

responsibility. The jury verdict is not a final judgment and the Company will be pursuing relief from the primary amount of the verdict when the judge hears post-verdict motions in late August. As of June 30, 2004, the Company recorded a reserve of $500,000, which represents management’s current estimate of probable losses related to this matter. Upon final resolution, the ultimate cost may be different and could result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and its quarterly or annual results of operations. In addition to its rights under post-verdict motions and the potential for appeal, the Company intends to pursue the seller for reimbursement for all costs associated with this case as well as any judgment returned. Such reimbursement has not been reflected in the Company’s reserve estimate discussed above.

     Polk County matter. During 2003, the Company was successful on its appeal of a previous summary judgment granted against it in January 2002 on an indemnification claim by the insurer of a client. The case has now been remanded to the lower court in accordance with the appelate court’s opinion as discussed below. In December 1995, the Florida Association of Counties Trust (“FACT”), as the insurer for the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, and the Sheriff of Polk County, Florida, brought an action against Prison Health Services, Inc. (“PHS”) in the Circuit Court, 10th Judicial Circuit, Polk County, Florida seeking indemnification for $1.0 million paid on behalf of the plaintiffs for settlement of a lawsuit brought against the Sheriff’s Office. The recovery is sought for amounts paid in settlement of a wrongful death claim brought by the estate of an inmate who died as a result of injuries sustained from a beating from several corrections officers employed by the Sheriff’s Office. In addition, the Sheriff’s Office released the Company from liability for this claim subsequent to filing the lawsuit. The plaintiffs contend that an indemnification provision in the contract between PHS and the Sheriff’s Office obligates the Company to indemnify the Sheriff’s Office against losses caused by its own wrongful acts. The Company was represented by counsel provided by Reliance Insurance Company (“Reliance”), the Company’s insurer. In April 2001, FACT’s motion for summary judgment on the question of liability for indemnity was denied, but on rehearing in July 2001 the prior denial was reversed and summary judgment was granted. In October 2001, Reliance filed for receivership. In January 2002, the court entered final judgment in favor of FACT for approximately $1.7 million at a hearing at which the Company was not represented, as counsel provided by Reliance had simultaneously filed a motion to withdraw. The Company retained new counsel in February 2002 and obtained a reversal of the summary judgment motion on October 31, 2003. The case has been remanded to the trial court to determine if the actions of the officers, for which some of them were indicted and convicted, were intentional and whether the claims for which indemnity was sought arose out of the provision of medical services and not the actions of the officers. The parties agreed to submit the matter to nonbinding arbitration and the Company received a successful ruling in July 2004. FACT has now requested the matter go forward to trial. The Company believes it will ultimately be successful at the trial court level. However, in the event that the Company is not successful at the trial court level, an adverse judgment could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and its quarterly or annual results of operations. The Company has entered into possible settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2004, the Company has reserved approximately $488,000 related to probable costs associated with this proceeding.

     Other matters. In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings incidental to its business. Certain claims, suits and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against the Company. An estimate of the amounts payable on existing claims for which the liability of the Company is probable is included in accrued expenses at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003. The Company is not aware of any material unasserted claims and would not anticipate that potential future claims would have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Performance Bonds

     The Company is required under certain contracts to provide performance bonds. At June 30, 2004, the Company has outstanding performance bonds totaling approximately $25.0 million. These performance bonds are collateralized by letters of credit totaling $4.0 million (see Note 13).

14

17. Net Income Per Share

     Net income per share is measured at two levels: basic income per share and diluted income per share. Basic income per share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted income per share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding after considering the additional dilution related to other dilutive securities. The Company’s other dilutive securities outstanding consist of options to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock. The table below sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share as required by SFAS No. 128, Earnings Per Share, for the quarters and six month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts).

     The table below sets forth information regarding options that have been excluded from the computation of diluted net income per share because the Company generated a net loss from continuing operations for the period or the option’s exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares for the periods shown and, therefore, the effect would be anti-dilutive.

18. Comprehensive Income

     For the quarters and six month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, the Company’s comprehensive income (loss) was equal to net income (loss).

15

19. Segment Data

     The Company has two reportable segments: correctional healthcare services and pharmaceutical distribution services. The correctional healthcare services segment contracts with state, county and local governmental agencies to provide healthcare services to inmates of prisons and jails. The pharmaceutical distribution services segment contracts with federal, state and local governments and certain private entities to distribute pharmaceuticals and certain medical supplies to inmates of correctional facilities. The accounting policies of the segments are the same. The Company evaluates segment performance based on each segment’s gross margin without allocation of corporate selling, general and administrative expenses, interest expense or income tax provision (benefit).

     The following table presents the summary financial information related to each segment that is used by the Company’s chief operating decision maker (in thousands):

16

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

General

     America Service Group Inc. (“ASG” or the “Company”) is the leading non-governmental provider of managed correctional healthcare services in the United States. The Company is a provider of managed healthcare services to county/municipal jails and detention centers and is also a distributor of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. The Company provides managed healthcare and/or pharmaceutical distribution services under 113 contracts to approximately 277,000 inmates at over 360 sites in 35 states.

     The Company operates through its subsidiaries Prison Health Services, Inc. (“PHS”), EMSA Limited Partnership (“EMSA”), Correctional Health Services, LLC (“CHS”), and Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC (“SPP”). ASG was incorporated in 1990 as a holding company for PHS. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “ASG” or the “Company” refer to ASG and its direct and indirect subsidiaries. ASG’s executive offices are located at 105 Westpark Drive, Suite 200, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027. Its telephone number is (615) 373-3100.

Forward-Looking Statements

     This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements represent management’s current expectations regarding future events. Forward-looking statements typically are identified by use of terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “plan,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate” and similar words, although some forward-looking statements are expressed differently. Actual results may differ materially from current expectations. Significant factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements include the following:

•

the Company’s ability to retain existing client contracts and obtain new contracts;

•

whether or not government agencies continue to privatize correctional healthcare services;

•

increased competition for new contracts and renewals of existing contracts;

•

the Company’s ability to execute its expansion strategies;

•

the Company’s ability to limit its exposure for catastrophic illnesses and injuries in excess of amounts covered under contracts or insurance coverage;

•

the outcome of pending litigation;

•

the Company’s dependence on key personnel;

•

the Company’s ability to attract and retain highly skilled healthcare personnel;

•

the Company’s ability to obtain adequate levels of professional liability insurance coverage at a reasonable cost;

•

the Company’s ability to maintain compliance with the terms of its credit facility; and

•

the Company’s ability to obtain new or renew existing performance bonds.

     In addition to the risks referenced above, additional risks are highlighted in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 under the heading “Item 1. Business — Cautionary Statements”.

17

Because these risk factors could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by the Company or on the Company’s behalf, stockholders should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Further, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for the Company to predict which factors will arise. In addition, the Company cannot assess the impact of each factor on its business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements.

Critical Accounting Policies And Estimates

General

     The Company’s discussion and analysis of its financial condition and results of operations are based upon its consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires the Company to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an on-going basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including, but not limited to, those related to:

•

revenue and cost recognition (including estimated medical claims);

•

loss contracts;

•

professional and general liability self-insurance retention;

•

other self-funded insurance reserves;

•

legal contingencies;

•

impairment of intangible assets and goodwill; and

•

income taxes.

     The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

     The Company believes the following critical accounting policies are affected by its more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of its consolidated financial statements.

Revenue and Cost Recognition

     The Company’s contracts with correctional institutions are principally fixed price contracts adjusted for census fluctuations. Such contracts typically have a term of one to three years with subsequent renewal options and generally may be terminated by the correctional institution at will and without cause upon proper notice. The contracts typically contain certain risk sharing arrangements, such as stop-loss provisions and aggregate limits for off-site or pharmaceutical costs. Revenues earned under contracts with correctional institutions are recognized in the period that services are rendered. Cash received in advance for future services is recorded as deferred revenue and recognized as income when the service is performed.

     Revenues are calculated based on the specific contract terms and fall into one of three general categories: fixed fee, population based, or cost plus a margin. For fixed fee contracts, revenues are recorded based on fixed monthly amounts established in the service contract. Revenues for population based contracts are calculated either as a fixed fee adjusted using a per diem rate for variances in the inmate population from predetermined population levels or by a per diem rate times the average inmate population for the period of service. For cost plus contracts, revenues are calculated based on actual expenses incurred during the service period plus a contractual margin. For contracts which include provisions limiting the Company’s exposure to off-site medical services utilization or pharmacy utilization, the Company recognizes the additional revenues that would be due from clients based on contract to date utilization

18

compared to the corresponding pro rata contractual limit for such costs. Under all contracts, the Company records revenues net of any estimated contractual allowances for potential adjustments resulting from performance or staffing related criteria. If necessary, the Company revises its estimates for such adjustments in future periods when the actual amount of the adjustment is determined.

     Revenues for the distribution of pharmaceutical and medical supplies are recognized upon delivery of the related products.

     Healthcare expenses include the compensation of physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals including any related benefits and all other direct costs of providing the managed care including the costs of professional and general liability insurance and other self-funded insurance reserves discussed more fully below. The cost of healthcare services provided or contracted for are recognized in the period in which they are provided based in part on estimates, including an accrual for estimated unbilled medical services rendered through the balance sheet date. The Company estimates the accrual for unbilled medical services using actual utilization data including hospitalization, one-day surgeries, physician visits and emergency room and ambulance visits and their corresponding costs, which are estimated using the average historical cost of such services. For contracts which have sufficient claims payment history, an actuarial analysis is also prepared monthly by an independent actuary to evaluate the adequacy of the accrual. The analysis takes into account historical claims experience (including the average historical costs and billing lag time for such services) and other actuarial data.

     Actual payments and future reserve requirements will differ from the Company’s current estimates. The differences could be material if significant adverse fluctuations occur in the healthcare cost structure or the Company’s future claims experience. Changes in estimates of claims resulting from such fluctuations and differences between actuarial estimates and actual claims payments are recognized in the period in which the estimates are changed or the payments are made.

Loss Contracts

     The Company accrues losses under its fixed price contracts when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company performs this loss accrual analysis on a specific contract basis taking into consideration such factors as future contractual revenue, projected future healthcare and maintenance costs, projected future stop-loss insurance recoveries and each contract’s specific terms related to future revenue increases as compared to increased healthcare costs. The projected future healthcare and maintenance costs are estimated based on historical trends and management’s estimate of future cost increases. These estimates are subject to the same adverse fluctuations and future claims experience as previously noted.

     On a quarterly basis, the Company performs a review of its portfolio of contracts for the purpose of identifying loss contracts and developing a contract loss reserve for succeeding periods. As a result of its fourth quarter 2001 review, the Company identified five non-cancelable contracts that, based upon management’s projections, were expected to continue to incur negative gross margins over their remaining terms. In December 2001, the Company recorded a charge of $18.3 million to establish a reserve for future losses under these non-cancelable contracts. The five contracts covered by the charge had expiration dates ranging from June 30, 2002 through June 30, 2005. Ninety percent of the charge related to the State of Kansas Department of Corrections (the “Kansas DOC”) contract, which was to expire on June 30, 2005, and the City of Philadelphia contract, which was renewable annually, at the client’s option, through June 30, 2004.

     In June 2002, the Company and the City of Philadelphia reached a mutual agreement that the contract between PHS and the City of Philadelphia would expire effective June 30, 2002. As a result of the earlier than anticipated expiration of this loss contract, the Company recorded a gain of $3.3 million, in the second quarter of 2002, to reduce its reserve for loss contracts. From July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002, the Company provided services to the City of Philadelphia under a transition arrangement. Subsequent to September 30, 2002, the Company is continuing to provide healthcare services to the City of Philadelphia under modified contract terms.

     During the quarter ended June 30, 2003, the Company utilized its loss contract reserve at a rate greater than previously anticipated due to an unexpected increase in healthcare expenses associated with the Company’s contract to provide services to the Kansas DOC. The primary causes for the increase in healthcare expenses in this contract

19

were hospitalization and outpatient costs. The Company increased its reserve for loss contracts by $4.5 million, as of June 30, 2003, to cover estimated future losses under the Kansas DOC contract, which was to expire in June 2005.

     During the second and third quarters of 2003, the Company participated in active discussions with the Kansas DOC related to a proposal from the Company that would significantly reduce the remaining length of the current contract. In response to the proposal, the Kansas DOC solicited and received proposals from several other vendors to provide healthcare services to the Kansas DOC. After the Kansas DOC’s evaluation of the proposals from the other vendors, in August 2003, the Company began discussions with Health Cost Solutions, Inc. (“HCS”) and the Kansas DOC related to a proposal pursuant to which HCS would assume the Company’s performance obligation under the Kansas DOC contract.

     On August 22, 2003, the Company entered into an assignment and novation agreement with the Kansas DOC to assign the Kansas DOC contract to HCS effective October 1, 2003. The Company also entered into a general assignment, novation and assumption agreement with HCS to transfer the Kansas DOC contract to HCS, effective October 1, 2003. Beginning October 1, 2003, HCS became solely responsible for the performance of the Kansas DOC contract, and the Company has no obligation to the Kansas DOC or to HCS related to HCS’ performance of the contract, therefore the operating results of this contract have been reclassified to discontinued operations for all periods presented. Under the terms of the Company’s agreement with HCS, the Company agreed to pay HCS net consideration of $5.6 million in 21 monthly installments, which commenced October 31, 2003 and will continue through June 30, 2005. As a result of the financial terms of the Company’s agreement with HCS, in the third quarter of 2003, the Company reclassified $6.5 million of its reserve for loss contracts to accounts payable and recorded a gain of $1.7 million, to reduce its reserve for loss contracts.

     As discussed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, the Company’s contract with the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“Maryland DPS”) has historically underperformed, fluctuating between minimal profitability, breakeven and losses. This contract was entered into on July 1, 2000, to provide comprehensive medical services to four regions of the Maryland prison system. The initial term of the contract was for the three years ended June 30, 2003, with the Maryland DPS having the ability to renew the contract for two additional one-year terms. The contract is presently in its second renewal term and is non-cancelable by the Company. The Maryland DPS pays the Company a flat fee per month with certain limited cost-sharing adjustments for staffing costs, primarily nurses, and the cost of medications related to certain specific illnesses. The Company is fully at risk for increases in hospitalization and outpatient costs under the terms of the contract with the Maryland DPS. The contract also contains provisions that allow the Maryland DPS to assess penalties if certain staffing or performance criteria are not maintained. The flat fee paid to the Company is increased annually based on a portion of the consumer price index.

     Due to the flat fee nature of this contract, the Company’s margin under the contract can be significantly impacted by changes in healthcare costs, utilization trends or inmate population. The Company incurred losses under this contract in April 2004 at a level slightly above expectations. The losses under the contract increased significantly in May 2004 to approximately $1.1 million for the month. The primary cause for the increased loss was an unanticipated increase in hospitalization costs beginning in May, resulting from the volume and acuity of services being provided, the number of HIV and mental health patients and the costs associated with current treatment guidelines. Based upon the recent historical trends, the Company believes that expected hospitalization costs over the remaining term of the contract will cause losses to continue to be incurred. As a result, the Company recorded a pre-tax contract charge of $6.8 million, effective June 1, 2004, to cover estimated future losses and allocated corporate overhead under the Maryland DPS contract until its expiration in June 2005.

     As of June 30, 2004, the Company had a loss contract reserve totaling $6.1 million, which relates to the Maryland DPS and a county contract.

     In the course of performing its reviews in future periods, the Company might revise its estimate of future losses related to the contracts currently identified as loss contacts. It might also identify additional contracts which have become loss contracts due to a change in circumstances. Circumstances that might change and result in a revised estimate of future losses or the identification of a contract as a loss contract in a future period include unanticipated adverse changes in the healthcare cost structure, inmate population or the utilization of outside medical services in a

20

contract, where such changes are not offset by increased healthcare revenues. Should the Company identify circumstances that would result in a revision of its estimate of future losses for a loss contract, the Company would, in the period in which the revision is made, increase or decrease the reserve for loss contracts. Should a contract be identified as a loss contract in a future period, the Company would record, in the period in which such identification is made, a reserve for the estimated future losses that would be incurred under the contract. A revision to a current loss contract or the identification of a loss contract in the future could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations in the period in which the reserve is recorded.

Professional and General Liability Self-Insurance Retention

     As a healthcare provider, the Company is subject to medical malpractice claims and lawsuits. The most significant source of potential liability in this regard is the risk of suits brought by inmates alleging lack of timely or adequate healthcare services. The Company may also be liable, as employer, for the negligence of healthcare professionals it employs or the healthcare professionals it engages as independent contractors. The Company’s contracts generally require it to indemnify the governmental agency for losses incurred related to healthcare provided by the Company or its agents.

     To mitigate a portion of this risk, the Company maintains its primary professional liability insurance program, principally on a claims-made basis. However, the Company assumes significant self-insurance risks resulting from the use of large deductibles in 2000 and 2001 and the use of adjustable premium policies in 2002, 2003 and 2004. For 2002, 2003 and 2004, the Company is covered by separate policies each of which contains a 42-month retro-premium with adjustment based on actual losses after 42 months. The Company’s ultimate premium for its 2002, 2003 and 2004 policies will depend on the final incurred losses related to each of these separate policy periods. Reserves for estimated losses related to known claims are provided for on an undiscounted basis using internal and external evaluations of the merits of the individual claims, analysis of claim history and the estimated reserves assigned by the Company’s third-party administrator. Any adjustments resulting from the review are reflected in current earnings.

     In addition to its reserves for known claims, the Company maintains a reserve for incurred but not reported claims. The reserve for incurred but not reported claims is recorded on an undiscounted basis. The Company’s estimates of this reserve are supported by an independent actuarial analysis, which is obtained on a quarterly basis.

     At June 30, 2004, the Company’s reserves for known and incurred but not reported claims totaled $18.4 million. Reserves for medical malpractice liability fluctuate because the number of claims and the severity of the underlying incidents change from one period to the next. Furthermore, payments with respect to previously estimated liabilities frequently differ from the estimated liability. Changes in estimates of losses resulting from such fluctuations and differences between actuarial estimates and actual loss payments are recognized by an adjustment to the reserve for medical malpractice liability in the period in which the estimates are changed or payments are made. The reserves can also be affected by changes in the financial health of the third-party insurance carriers used by the Company. Changes in reserve requirements resulting from a change in the financial health of a third-party insurance carrier are recognized in the period in which such factor becomes known.

Other Self-Funded Insurance Reserves

     At June 30, 2004, the Company has approximately $8.0 million in accrued liabilities for employee health and workers’ compensation claims. The Company is significantly self-insured for employee health and workers’ compensation claims. As such, its insurance expense is largely dependent on claims experience and the ability to control claims. The Company accrues the estimated liability for employee health insurance based on its history of claims experience and the time lag between the incident date and the date of actual claim payment. The Company accrues the estimated liability for workers’ compensation claims based on internal and external evaluations of the merits of the individual claims, analysis of claim history and the estimated reserves assigned by the Company’s third-party administrator. These estimates could change in the future.

21

Legal Contingencies

     In addition to professional and general liability claims, the Company is also subject to other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Such proceedings generally relate to labor, employment or contract matters. When estimable, the Company accrues an estimate of the probable costs for the resolution of these claims. Such estimates are developed in consultation with outside counsel handling the Company’s defense in these matters and is based upon an estimated range of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. The Company does not believe these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position. However, it is possible that future results of operations for any particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected by changes in assumptions, new developments or changes in approach, such as a change in settlement strategy in dealing with such litigation.

Impairment of Intangible Assets and Goodwill

     The Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, (“SFAS No. 142”) on January 1, 2002, at which time it ceased amortization of goodwill. In accordance with SFAS No. 142, goodwill acquired is reviewed for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. The Company performed its annual review as of December 31, 2003. Based on the results of this annual review, management determined that goodwill was not impaired as of December 31, 2003. Future events could cause the Company to conclude that impairment indicators exist and that goodwill is impaired. Any resulting impairment loss could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

     The Company’s other identifiable intangible assets, such as customer contracts acquired in acquisitions and covenants not to compete, are amortized on the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives. The Company also assesses the impairment of its other identifiable intangibles whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable.

     Important factors taken into consideration when evaluating the need for an impairment review include the following:

•

significant underperformance or loss of key contracts relative to expected historical or projected future operating results;

•

significant changes in the manner of use of the Company’s assets or in the Company’s overall business strategy; and

•

significant negative industry or economic trends.

     If the Company determines that the carrying value of goodwill may be impaired based upon the existence of one or more of the above indicators of impairment or as a result of its annual impairment review, any impairment is measured using a fair-value-based goodwill impairment test as required under the provisions of SFAS No. 142. Fair value is the amount at which the asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties and may be estimated using a number of techniques, including quoted market prices or valuations by third parties, present value techniques based on estimates of cash flows, or multiples of earnings or revenues. The fair value of the asset could be different using different estimates and assumptions in these valuation techniques.

     When the Company determines that the carrying value of other intangible assets may not be recoverable based upon the existence of one or more of the above indicators of impairment, any impairment is measured using an estimate of the asset’s fair value based on the projected net cash flows expected to result from that asset, including eventual disposition.

     Future events could cause the Company to conclude that impairment indicators exist and that goodwill associated with its acquired businesses is impaired. Any resulting impairment loss could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

     The Company evaluates the estimated remaining useful life of its contract intangibles on at least a quarterly basis, taking into account new facts and circumstances, including its retention rate for acquired contracts. If such

22

facts and circumstances indicate the current estimated life is no longer reasonable, the Company adjusts the estimated useful life on a prospective basis.

Income Taxes

     The Company accounts for income taxes under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes (“SFAS No. 109”). Under the asset and liability method of SFAS No. 109, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases.

     The Company regularly reviews its deferred tax assets for recoverability taking into consideration such factors as historical losses, projected future taxable income and the expected timing of the reversals of existing temporary differences. SFAS No. 109 requires the Company to record a valuation allowance when it is “more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.” It further states “forming a conclusion that a valuation allowance is not needed is difficult when there is negative evidence such as cumulative losses in recent years.” Since December 31, 2001 and until June 30, 2004, the Company has maintained a 100% valuation allowance equal to the deferred tax assets after considering deferred tax assets that can be realized through offsets to existing taxable temporary differences.

     Based upon the Company’s results of operations since December 31, 2001, and its expected profitability in this and future years, the Company has concluded, effective June 30, 2004, that it is more likely than not that substantially all of its net deferred tax assets will be realized. As a result, in accordance with SFAS No. 109, substantially all of the valuation allowance applied to such net deferred tax assets has been reversed in the second quarter of 2004. Reversal of the valuation allowance resulted in a non-cash income tax benefit in the second quarter of 2004 totaling $5.3 million. This benefit represents the Company’s estimated realizable deferred tax assets, excluding those deferred tax assets that resulted from the exercise of employee stock options. The reversal of the valuation allowance that relates to the Company’s estimated realizable deferred tax assets resulting from the exercises of employee stock options totals $3.9 million and has been recorded as a direct increase to additional paid-in capital in the stockholders’ equity portion of the Company’s balance sheet as of June 30, 2004.

     As a result of the reversal of the valuation allowance, beginning with the third quarter of 2004, the Company expects to begin providing for an income tax provision at a rate on income before taxes equal to the combined federal and state effective tax rates, currently estimated to be 40 percent.

23

Results of Operations

     The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the percentage relationship to healthcare revenues of certain items in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Quarter Ended June 30, 2004 Compared to Quarter Ended June 30, 2003

     Healthcare revenues. Healthcare revenues for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 increased $45.3 million, or 35.8%, from $126.6 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 to $171.9 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. Healthcare revenues in 2004 included $31.5 million of revenue growth resulting from correctional healthcare services contracts added in 2003 and 2004 through marketing activities. Correctional healthcare services contracts in place at December 31, 2002 and continuing beyond June 30, 2004 provided additional revenue of $15.6 million during the second quarter of 2004 as the result of contract renegotiations, automatic price adjustments and risk-sharing arrangements. Correctional healthcare services contracts in place throughout the entire quarter during both 2004 and 2003 experienced revenue growth of 13.6%. Offsetting these revenue increases, SPP pharmaceutical distribution revenue decreased $1.8 million primarily as a result of the loss of a pharmaceutical distribution customer in the third quarter of 2003. As discussed in the discontinued operations section below, the Company’s correctional healthcare services contracts that have expired or otherwise been terminated have been classified as discontinued operations.

     Healthcare expenses. Healthcare expenses for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 increased $41.2 million, or 34.6%, from $119.1 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 to $160.3 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. Expenses related to new correctional healthcare services contracts added in 2003 and 2004 through marketing activities accounted for $27.7 million of the increase. Healthcare expenses as a percentage of healthcare revenues decreased by 0.8% in 2004 as compared to 2003. This percentage decrease results primarily from increased healthcare revenues associated with the Company’s ongoing efforts, when renewing or negotiating contracts, to negotiate risk-sharing arrangements, such as stop-loss provisions and aggregate limits for off-site or pharmaceutical costs. Approximately $1.2 million and $93,000 in negative operating margin related to the Company’s loss contracts was charged against the loss contract reserve during the quarters ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

     Increase in reserve for loss contracts. As discussed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, the Company’s contract with the Maryland DPS has historically underperformed, fluctuating between minimal profitability, breakeven and losses. This contract was entered into on July 1, 2000, to provide comprehensive medical services to four regions of the Maryland prison system. The initial term of the contract was for the three years ended June 30, 2003, with the Maryland DPS having the ability to renew the contract for two additional one-year terms. The contract is presently in its second renewal term and is non-cancelable by the Company. The Maryland DPS pays the Company a flat fee per month with certain limited cost-sharing adjustments for staffing costs, primarily nurses, and the cost of medications related to certain specific illnesses. The Company is fully at risk for increases in hospitalization and outpatient costs under the terms of the contract with the Maryland

24

DPS. The contract also contains provisions that allow the Maryland DPS to assess penalties if certain staffing or performance criteria are not maintained. The flat fee paid to the Company is increased annually based on a portion of the consumer price index.

     Due to the flat fee nature of this contract, the Company’s margin under the contract can be significantly impacted by changes in healthcare costs, utilization trends or inmate population. The Company incurred losses under this contract in April 2004 at a level slightly above expectations. The losses under the contract increased significantly in May 2004 to approximately $1.1 million for the month. The primary cause for the increased loss was an unanticipated increase in hospitalization costs beginning in May, resulting from the volume and acuity of services being provided, the number of HIV and mental health patients and the costs associated with current treatment guidelines. Based upon the recent historical trends, the Company believes that expected hospitalization costs over the remaining term of the contract will cause losses to continue to be incurred. As a result, the Company recorded a pre-tax contract charge of $6.8 million, effective June 1, 2004, to cover estimated future losses and corporate overhead under the Maryland DPS contract until its expiration in June 2005.

     Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general and administrative expenses were $4.5 million, or 2.6% of healthcare revenues, for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as compared to $3.5 million, or 2.8% of healthcare revenues, for the quarter ended June 30, 2003. The percentage of revenue decrease is primarily the result of the increase in healthcare revenues discussed above partially offset by $500,000 in expense recorded in connection with the EMSA lease matter discussed in Part II – Item 1. Approximately $116,000 and $168,000 in overhead costs associated with the Company’s loss contracts were charged against the loss contract reserve during the quarters ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

     Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization expense for each of the quarters ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 was $1.0 million and $1.1 million, respectively.

     Interest, net. Net interest expense decreased to $0.5 million, or 0.2% of healthcare revenues, for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 from $1.0 million, or 0.8% of healthcare revenues, for the quarter ended June 30, 2003. This decrease is primarily the result of a reduction in the level of debt outstanding.

     Income tax provision (benefit). The income tax benefit for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 was $5.3 million or 3.1% of healthcare revenues as compared to an income tax provision of $0.2 million or 0.2% of healthcare revenues for the quarter ended June 30, 2003. During the quarter ended June 30, 2004, the Company has recorded an income tax benefit of $5.3 million which results from the reversal, effective June 30, 2004, of substantially all of the valuation allowance previously established for its net deferred tax assets. Prior to June 30, 2004, the Company maintained a 100% valuation allowance, established in the quarter ended December 31, 2001, related to its net deferred tax assets. As a result of the valuation allowance in place during 2003, the income tax provision for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 primarily reflects state income taxes due.

     Income from continuing operations. Income from continuing operations for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 was $4.2 million, as compared with $1.6 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as the result of the factors discussed above.

     Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes. Income from discontinued operations for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 was $0.1 million as compared with a loss from discontinued operations of $3.6 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2003. Income (loss) from discontinued operations represents the operating results of the Company’s correctional healthcare services contracts that have expired or otherwise been terminated. The classification of these expired contracts is the result of the Company’s adoption of SFAS No. 144 effective January 1, 2002. See Note 6 of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements for further discussion of SFAS No. 144. Approximately $0 and $1.5 million in negative operating margin related to the Company’s loss contracts classified as discontinued operations was charged against the loss contract reserve during the quarters ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

     Also included in income (loss) from discontinued operations for 2003 is a second quarter increase in the reserve for loss contracts of $4.5 million. During the second quarter of 2003, the Company utilized its loss contract reserve at a rate greater than previously anticipated. This increase in utilization was primarily the result of an unexpected

25

increase in healthcare expenses associated with the Company’s contract to provide services to the Kansas DOC. The primary causes for the increase in healthcare expenses in this contract were hospitalization and outpatient costs. As a result of the utilization increase, the Company increased its reserve for loss contracts by $4.5 million, as of June 30, 2003, to cover estimated future losses under the Kansas DOC contract which was to expire in June 2005.

     Net income (loss). Net income for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 was $4.3 million as compared with a net loss of $1.9 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as the result of the factors discussed above.

Six Months Ended June 30, 2004 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2003

     Healthcare revenues. Healthcare revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2004 increased $89.5 million, or 36.0%, from $249.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2003 to $338.6 million for 2004. Healthcare revenues in the first six months of 2004 included $61.1 million of revenue growth resulting from contracts added in 2003 and 2004 through marketing activities. Contracts in place at December 31, 2002 and continuing beyond June 30, 2004, provided additional revenue of $31.8 million during the first six months of 2004 as the result of contract renegotiations and automatic price adjustments. Correctional contracts in place throughout the entire six months during both 2004 and 2003 experienced revenue growth of 14.0%. Offsetting these revenue increases, SPP pharmaceutical distribution revenue decreased $3.4 million primarily as a result of the loss of a pharmaceutical distribution customer in the third quarter of 2003. As discussed in the discontinued operations section below, all contracts that expired subsequent to January 1, 2002 have been classified as discontinued operations.

     Healthcare expenses. Healthcare expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2004 increased $82.3 million, or 35.2%, from $233.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2003 to $316.1 million in 2004. Expenses related to new contracts from marketing activities accounted for $53.9 million of the increase. Healthcare expenses as a percentage of revenues decreased by 0.6% in 2004 as compared to 2003. This decrease results primarily from increases in revenues associated with the Company’s ongoing efforts when renewing or negotiating contracts to negotiate risk-sharing arrangements, such as stop-loss provisions and aggregate limits for off-site or pharmaceutical costs. Approximately $1.4 million and $242,000 in negative operating margin related to the Company’s loss contracts was charged against the loss contract reserve during the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

     Increase in reserve for loss contracts. As discussed above in the section titled “Quarter Ended June 30, 2004 Compared to Quarter Ended June 30, 2003,” in the second quarter of 2004, the Company recorded a pre-tax contract charge of $6.8 million, effective June 1, 2004, to cover estimated future losses and allocated corporate overhead under the Maryland DPS contract until its expiration in June 2005.

     Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general and administrative expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2004 increased $1.9 million from $7.0 million, or 2.8% of revenues, for the six months ended June 30, 2003 to $8.9 million, or 2.6% of revenues, in 2004. The percentage of revenue decrease is primarily the result of the increase in healthcare revenues discussed above partially offset by $500,000 in expense recorded in connection with the EMSA lease matter discussed in Part II – Item 1. Approximately $131,000 and $331,000 in overhead costs associated with the Company’s loss contracts was charged against the loss contract reserve during the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

     Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization expense for each of the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 was $2.0 million and $2.1 million, respectively.

     Charge for settlement of Florida legal matter. One of the Company’s subsidiaries, EMSA Limited Partnership, entered into a settlement agreement with the Florida Attorney General’s office on March 30, 2004, related to allegations, first raised in connection with an investigation of EMSA Correctional Services (EMSA) in 1997, that the Company may have played an indirect role in the improper billing of Medicaid by independent providers treating incarcerated patients. The Company acquired EMSA in 1999. EMSA was a party to several contracts to provide healthcare to inmates at Florida correctional facilities. Typically, in those contracts, which were approved by government lawyers, the clients required EMSA to seek all available third party reimbursement for medical services provided to inmates, specifically including Medicaid. It was the implementation of these contract requirements that the Florida Attorney General’s office alleged was improper.

26

     The settlement agreement with the Florida Attorney General’s office constitutes a complete resolution and settlement of the claims asserted against EMSA and required EMSA Limited Partnership to pay $5.0 million to the State of Florida. This payment was made by the Company on March 30, 2004. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company and all of its subsidiaries are released from liability for any alleged actions which might have occurred from December 1, 1998 to March 31, 2004. Both parties entered into the settlement agreement to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience and expense of protracted litigation. The settlement agreement states that it is not punitive in purpose or effect, it should not be construed or used as admission of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, and that EMSA specifically denies intentionally submitting any medical claims in violation of state or federal law.

     The Company recorded a charge of $5.2 million in its results of operations for the first quarter of 2004, reflecting the settlement agreement with the Florida Attorney General’s office and related legal expenses.

     Interest, net. Net interest expense decreased to $1.0 million, or 0.3% of revenue, for the six months ended June 30, 2004 from $2.1 million, or 0.8% of revenue, for the six months ended June 30, 2003. This decrease is primarily the result of a reduction in the level of debt outstanding.

     Income tax provision (benefit). The income tax benefit for the six month period ended June 30, 2004 was $5.0 million or 1.5% of healthcare revenues as compared to an income tax provision of $0.4 million or 0.1% of healthcare revenues for the six month period ended June 30, 2003. As discussed above in the section titled “Quarter Ended June 30, 2004 Compared to Quarter Ended June 30, 2003,” in the second quarter of 2004, the Company recorded an income tax benefit of $5.3 million which results from the reversal, effective June 30, 2004, of substantially all of the valuation allowance previously established for its net deferred tax assets.

     Income from continuing operations. Income from continuing operations for the six months ended June 30, 2004 was $3.7 million, or 1.1% of revenue, as compared with $3.6 million, or 1.5% of revenue, for the six months ended June 30, 2003 as the result of the factors discussed above.

     Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes. Income from discontinued operations for the six months ended June 30, 2004 was $0.2 million, as compared with a loss from discontinued operations of $2.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2003. Income from discontinued operations represents the operating results of the Company’s contracts that have expired or otherwise been terminated subsequent to January 1, 2002. The classification of these expired contracts is the result of the Company’s adoption of SFAS No. 144 effective January 1, 2002. See Note 6 of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements for further discussion of SFAS No. 144. Approximately $53,000 and $2.3 million in negative operating margin related to the Company’s loss contracts classified as discontinued operations was charged against the loss contract reserve during the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively. As discussed above in the section titled “Quarter Ended June 30, 2004 Compared to Quarter Ended June 30, 2003,” in the second quarter of 2003, the Company increased its reserve for loss contracts by $4.5 million to cover estimated future losses under the Kansas DOC contract which was to expire in June 2005.

     Net income. Net income for the six months ended June 30, 2004 was $3.9 million, or 1.2% of revenue, as compared with net income of $1.0 million, or 0.4% of revenue, for the six months ended June 30, 2003 as the result of the factors discussed above.

27

Liquidity and Capital Resources

     Overview

     The Company generated net income of $3.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 compared to net income of $1.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2003. The Company had stockholders’ equity of $48.6 million at June 30, 2004 as compared to $39.0 million at December 31, 2003. The Company’s cash and cash equivalents increased to $7.6 million at June 30, 2004 from $1.2 million at December 31, 2003, an increase of $6.4 million. The increase in cash was primarily the result of cash flows from operations.

     Cash flows from operating activities represent the year to date net income (loss) plus depreciation and amortization, changes in various components of working capital and adjustments for various non-cash charges, such as increases or reductions in the reserve for loss contracts. Cash flows from operating activities during the six months ended June 30, 2004 were $7.0 million, a decrease of $1.9 million from cash flows from operations for the six months ended June 30, 2003 of $8.9 million. The decrease was primarily due to a $5.2 million settlement related to a Florida legal matter discussed above and an increase of $13.4 million in outstanding accounts receivable which resulted from a combination of increased revenues due to risk sharing arrangements and new contracts. These negative factors were offset by an increase of $15.5 million in accounts payable and medical claims liability.

     Cash flows provided by financing activities during the six months ended June 30, 2004 were $0.5 million and include net payments totaling $1.2 million to reduce the amount of debt outstanding from $3.6 million at December 31, 2003 to $2.4 million at June 30, 2004. Also included in cash flows provided by financing activities during the first six months of 2004 were cash receipts of $1.7 million resulting from option exercises and issuance of common stock under an employee stock purchase plan.

     Credit Facility

     On October 31, 2002, the Company entered into a new credit facility with CapitalSource Finance LLC (the “CapitalSource Credit Facility”). The CapitalSource Credit Facility matures on October 31, 2005 and includes both a $55.0 million revolving credit facility (the “Revolver”) and a $5.0 million term loan (the “Term Loan”). Proceeds from the CapitalSource Credit Facility were used to repay the borrowings outstanding pursuant to the Company’s previously existing revolving credit facility (the “Prior Credit Facility”), at which time the Company wrote off approximately $726,000 of deferred loan costs related to the Prior Credit Facility.

     The CapitalSource Credit Facility is secured by substantially all assets of the Company and its operating subsidiaries. At June 30, 2004, the Company had no borrowings outstanding under the Revolver and $33.8 million available for additional borrowing, based on the Company’s collateral base on that date and outstanding standby letters of credit.

     In June 2003, the Company and CapitalSource Finance LLC entered into an amendment to the CapitalSource Credit Facility. Under the terms of the amendment, the Company may have standby letters of credit issued under the loan agreement in amounts up to $10.0 million. The amount available to the Company for borrowings under the CapitalSource Credit Facility is reduced by the amount of each outstanding standby letter of credit. At June 30, 2004, the Company had outstanding standby letters of credit totaling $4.0 million, which were used to collateralize performance bonds.

     Borrowings under the Revolver are limited to the lesser of (1) 85% of eligible receivables (as defined in the Revolver) or (2) $55.0 million (the “Revolver Capacity”). Interest under the Revolver is payable monthly at the greater of 5.75% or the Citibank N.A. prime rate plus 1.0%. The Company is also required to pay a monthly collateral management fee, equal to an annual rate of 1.38%, on average borrowings outstanding under the Revolver. Additionally, the Company is required to pay a monthly letter of credit fee equal to an annual rate of 3.5% on the outstanding balance of letters of credit issued pursuant to the Revolver.

     Under the terms of the CapitalSource Credit Facility, the Company is required to pay a monthly unused line fee equal to an annual rate of 0.6% on the Revolver Capacity less the actual average borrowings outstanding under the Revolver for the month and the balance of any outstanding letters of credit.

28

     All amounts outstanding under the Revolver will be due and payable on October 31, 2005. If the Revolver is extinguished prior to July 1, 2005, the Company will be required to pay an early termination fee equal to 1.0% of the Revolver Capacity. In connection with the Revolver, the CapitalSource Credit Facility requires a lockbox agreement, which provides for all cash receipts to be swept daily to reduce borrowings outstanding. This agreement, combined with the existence of a Material Adverse Effect (“MAE”) clause in the CapitalSource Credit Facility, requires the Revolver to be classified as a current liability, in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 95-22, Balance Sheet Classification of Borrowings Outstanding under Revolving Credit Agreements that Include Both a Subjective Acceleration Clause and a Lock-Box Arrangement. The MAE clause, which is a typical requirement in commercial credit agreements, allows the lender to require the loan to become due if the lender determines there has been a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations, business, properties, assets, liabilities, condition or prospects. The classification of the Revolver as a current liability is a result only of the combination of the two aforementioned factors: the lockbox agreements and the MAE clause. The Revolver does not expire or have a maturity date within one year. As discussed above, the Revolver has a final expiration date of October 31, 2005.

     At June 30, 2004, $2.4 million was outstanding under the Term Loan. The Term Loan requires monthly principal payments of approximately $139,000, through its maturity on October 31, 2005. Interest under the Term Loan is payable monthly at the greater of 8.5% or the Citibank, N.A. prime rate plus 3.5%. Upon expiration of the Term Loan, the Company will be required to pay a fee of $100,000.

     The CapitalSource Credit Facility requires the Company to achieve a minimum level of EBITDA of $3.0 million on a rolling three-month measurement period. The CapitalSource Credit Facility, as amended, defines EBITDA as net income plus interest expense, income taxes, depreciation expense, amortization expense, $5.0 million related to the Company’s settlement of the Florida legal matter, any other non-cash non-recurring expense, including increases or decreases to the Company’s loss contract reserve, and any losses from asset sales outside of the normal course of business, minus gains on asset sales outside the normal course of business, non-recurring gains, and charges against the Company’s loss contract reserve.

     The CapitalSource Credit Facility also requires the Company to maintain a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.5 on a rolling three-month basis. The CapitalSource Credit Facility defines the fixed charge coverage ratio as EBITDA, as defined above, divided by the sum of principal payments on outstanding debt, cash interest expense on outstanding debt, capital expenditures, cash income taxes paid or accrued, and cash dividends paid or accrued or declared. In addition, the Company is required to maintain a minimum fixed charge ratio of 1.75 calculated using the most recent twelve-month period.

     The Company was in compliance with these financial covenants as of June 30, 2004.

     The CapitalSource Credit Facility also contains restrictions on the Company with respect to certain types of transactions, including acquisition of the Company’s own stock, payment of dividends, indebtedness and sales or transfers of assets.

     The Company is dependent on the availability of borrowings pursuant to the CapitalSource Credit Facility to meet its working capital needs, capital expenditure requirements and other cash flow requirements during 2004. Management believes that the Company can comply with the terms of the CapitalSource Credit Facility and meet its expected obligations throughout 2004. However, should the Company fail to meet its projected results, it may be forced to seek additional sources of financing in order to fund its working capital needs.

     Other Financing Transactions

     At June 30, 2004, the Company had standby letters of credit outstanding totaling $4.0 million which were collateralized by a reduction of availability under the CapitalSource Credit Facility.

29

     Off-Balance Sheet Transactions

     As of June 30, 2004 the Company did not have any off-balance sheet financing transactions or arrangements except the standby letters of credit discussed above.

     Inflation

     Some of the Company’s contracts provide for annual increases in the fixed base fee based upon changes in the regional medical care component of the Consumer Price Index. In all other contracts that extend beyond one year, the Company utilizes a projection of the future inflation rate when bidding and negotiating the fixed fee for future years. If the rate of inflation exceeds the levels projected, the excess costs will be absorbed by the Company with the financial impact dependent upon contract structure. Conversely, the Company may benefit should the actual rate of inflation fall below the estimate used in the bidding and negotiation process.

     Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncement

     In December 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (“FIN 46”). This interpretation addresses consolidation by business enterprises of variable interest entities when certain characteristics are present. The Company adopted the provisions of FIN 46 effective January 1, 2004. Such adoption did not impact the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

30

ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

     Market risk represents the risk of loss that may impact the consolidated financial statements of the Company due to adverse changes in financial market prices and rates. The Company’s exposure to market risk is primarily related to changes in the variable interest rate under the CapitalSource Credit Facility. The CapitalSource Credit Facility carries an interest rate based on the Citibank N.A. prime rate, subject to a minimum stated interest rate; therefore the Company’s cash flow may be affected by changes in the prime rate. A hypothetical 10% change in the underlying interest rate would have had no effect on interest expense paid under the CapitalSource Credit Facility, as the resulting interest rate would have remained below the minimum stated interest rate. Interest expense represents 0.3% and 0.8% of the Company’s revenues, respectively, for the six month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003. Debt of $2.4 million at June 30, 2004 represents 1.3% of the Company’s total liabilities and stockholders’ equity.

ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

     Disclosure controls and procedures are the Company’s controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that the Company files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that the Company files or furnishes under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

     As of the end of the period covered by this report, the Company evaluated under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures, pursuant to the Exchange Act. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective in timely alerting them to material information that is required to be included in the Company’s periodic SEC filings. There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the second quarter of 2004 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

31

PART II:

OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

     EMSA lease matter. On July 12, 2004, EMSA Limited Partnership, a limited partnership owned by the Company, received an unexpected adverse jury verdict in the Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida of approximately $1.2 million plus potential interest. This verdict relates to a 12 year old case filed by the plaintiff, Community Health Related Services, Inc (wholly owned by Dr. Carlos Vicaria) seeking unspecified damages involving a lease dispute in connection with a line of business managing physician clinics operated by EMSA Limited Partnership prior to its acquisition by the Company in 1999. The Company did not acquire this line of business or assume the expired sublease from the seller under the transaction. The Company has, to date, been forced to defend the case as the seller has not yet assumed responsibility. The jury verdict is not a final judgment and the Company will be pursuing relief from the primary amount of the verdict when the judge hears post-verdict motions in late August. As of June 30, 2004, the Company recorded a reserve of $500,000 which represents management’s current estimate of probable losses related to this matter. Upon final resolution, the ultimate cost may be different and could result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and its quarterly or annual results of operations. In addition to its rights under post-verdict motions and the potential for appeal, the Company intends to pursue the seller for reimbursement for all costs associated with this case as well as any judgment returned. Such reimbursement has not been reflected in the Company’s reserve estimate discussed above.

     Polk County matter. During 2003, the Company was successful on its appeal of a previous summary judgment granted against it in January 2002 on an indemnification claim by the insurer of a client. The case has now been remanded to the lower court in accordance with the appelate court’s opinion as discussed below. In December 1995, the Florida Association of Counties Trust (“FACT”), as the insurer for the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, and the Sheriff of Polk County, Florida, brought an action against PHS in the Circuit Court, 10th Judicial Circuit, Polk County, Florida seeking indemnification for $1.0 million paid on behalf of the plaintiffs for settlement of a lawsuit brought against the Sheriff’s Office. The recovery is sought for amounts paid in settlement of a wrongful death claim brought by the estate of an inmate who died as a result of injuries sustained from a beating from several corrections officers employed by the Sheriff’s Office. In addition, the Sheriff’s Office released the Company from liability for this claim subsequent to filing the lawsuit. The plaintiffs contend that an indemnification provision in the contract between PHS and the Sheriff’s Office obligates the Company to indemnify the Sheriff’s Office against losses caused by its own wrongful acts. The Company was represented by counsel provided by Reliance Insurance Company (“Reliance”), the Company’s insurer. In April 2001, FACT’s motion for summary judgment on the question of liability for indemnity was denied, but on rehearing in July 2001 the prior denial was reversed and summary judgment was granted. In October 2001, Reliance filed for receivership. In January 2002, the court entered final judgment in favor of FACT for approximately $1.7 million at a hearing at which the Company was not represented, as counsel provided by Reliance had simultaneously filed a motion to withdraw. The Company retained new counsel in February 2002 and obtained a reversal of the summary judgment motion on October 31, 2003. The case has been remanded to the trial court to determine if the actions of the officers, for which some of them were indicted and convicted, were intentional and whether the claims for which indemnity was sought arose out of the provision of medical services and not the actions of the officers. The parties agreed to submit the matter to nonbinding arbitration and the Company received a successful ruling in July 2004. FACT has now requested the matter go forward to trial. The Company believes it will ultimately be successful at the trial court level. However, in the event that the Company is not successful at the trial court level, an adverse judgment could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and its quarterly or annual results of operations. The Company has entered into possible settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2004, the Company has reserved approximately $488,000 related to probable costs associated with this proceeding.

     Other matters. In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings incidental to its business. Certain claims, suits and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against the Company. An estimate of the amounts payable on existing claims for which the liability of the Company is probable is included in accrued expenses at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003. The Company is not aware of any material unasserted claims and, based on its past experience, would not anticipate that potential future claims would have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

32

ITEM 2. CHANGES IN SECURITIES, USE OF PROCEEDS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

     Not applicable.

ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES

     Not applicable.

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

	(a)		The Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders was held on Wednesday, June 16, 2004.
	(b)		Not applicable.
	(c)
			Proposal One: The results for the vote for election of directors to the Company’s Board of Directors were as follows:

Proposal Two: The results of the vote for approval of the America Service Group Inc. Amended and Restated 1999 Incentive Stock Plan were as follows:

Proposal Three: The results of the vote for approval of the amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock to 20,000,000 shares were as follows:

ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION

     Not applicable.

33

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K

(a)

Exhibits

* Management contract, compensatory plan or arrangement.

** Data required by SFAS No. 128, “Earnings Per Share,” is provided in note 17 to the condensed consolidated financial statements in this report.

34

(b)

Reports on Form 8-K

On April 27, 2004, the Company furnished a Current Report on Form 8-K under Item 12 related to its press release dated April 26, 2004 containing information about the Company’s financial position or results of operations for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004.

On May 26, 2004, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K under Items 5 and 7 related to its press release dated May 25, 2004 announcing that the Company’s subsidiary, Prison Health Services, Inc. (“PHS”), had been notified by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of its recommendation for award to PHS of the contract to provide comprehensive medical, mental health, dental and ancillary services to inmates in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction.

On July 1, 2004, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K under Items 7 and 9 related to its press release dated June 30, 2004 announcing that PHS has been recommended for award of a new three-year contract to provide comprehensive healthcare services for detention and correction facilities in Alameda County, California, the Company extended its contract at the request of the City of Philadelphia Prison System to August 31, 2004, and the Company was included in the Russell 2000® Index effective June 25, 2004.

35

SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Dated: August 9, 2004

36