UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

þ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number: 001-16109

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

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

The aggregate market value of the shares of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $1,330,276,971 as of June 30, 2004, based on the closing price of such shares on the New York Stock Exchange on that day. The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding on March 1, 2005 was 39,093,965.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

     Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled to be held on May 10, 2005, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
FORM 10-K
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

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

	•	fluctuations in operating results because of changes in occupancy levels, competition, increases in cost of operations, fluctuations in interest rates and risks of operations;
	•	changes in the privatization of the corrections and detention industry and the public acceptance of our services;
	•	our ability to obtain and maintain correctional facility management contracts, including as the result of sufficient governmental appropriations, inmate disturbances, and the timing of the opening of new facilities;
	•	increases in costs to develop or expand correctional facilities that exceed original estimates, or the inability to complete such projects on schedule as a result of various factors, many of which are beyond our control, such as weather, labor conditions and material shortages, resulting in increased construction costs;
	•	changes in government policy and in legislation and regulation of the corrections and detention industry that adversely affect our business;
	•	the availability of debt and equity financing on terms that are favorable to us; and
	•	general economic and market conditions.

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

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

3

Our forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained in this annual report.

4

PART I.

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are the nation’s largest owner and operator of privatized correctional and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States behind only the federal government and three states. We currently operate 64 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities, including 39 facilities that we own, with a total design capacity of approximately 70,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. We also own three additional correctional facilities that we lease to third-party operators.

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

Our website address is www.correctionscorp.com. We make our Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, Form 8-K, and Section 16 reports available on our website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports are filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Information contained on our website is not part of this report.

Operations

Management and Operation of Facilities

Our customers consist of federal, state, and local correctional and detention authorities. For the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, federal correctional and detention authorities represented 37%, 37%, and 33%, respectively, of our total revenue. Federal correctional and detention authorities consist of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, the United States Marshals Service, or USMS, and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS).

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

We are compensated for operating and managing facilities at an inmate per diem rate based upon actual or minimum guaranteed occupancy levels. Occupancy rates for a particular facility are typically low when first opened or when expansions are first available. However, beyond the start-up period, which typically ranges from 90 to 180 days, the occupancy rate tends to stabilize. For the years 2004, 2003, and 2002, the average compensated occupancy, based on rated capacity, of our facilities was 94.7%, 93.0%, and 89.1%, respectively, for all of the facilities we owned or managed, exclusive of those discontinued. From a capacity perspective, we currently have four facilities, our Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, North Fork Correctional Facility, Crowley County Correctional Facility and Prairie Correctional Facility, that provide us with approximately 5,500 available beds.

5

On December 23, 2004, we were awarded a new contract from the BOP to house approximately 1,195 federal inmates at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. We expect to begin receiving inmates pursuant to this contract during the second quarter of 2005. We also have a facility with approximately 1,500 beds located in Stewart County, Georgia, which is under construction and is expected to be completed during the second quarter of 2005.

We are required by our contracts to maintain certain levels of insurance coverage for general liability, workers’ compensation, vehicle liability and property loss or damage. We are also required to indemnify the contracting agencies for claims and costs arising out of our operations and, in certain cases, to maintain performance bonds and other collateral requirements. Approximately 75% of the facilities we operated at December 31, 2004 were accredited by the American Correctional Association Commission on Accreditation. The American Correctional Association, or the ACA, is an independent organization comprised of professionals in the corrections industry that establish standards by which a correctional institution may gain accreditation.

Operating Procedures

Pursuant to the terms of our management contracts, we are responsible for the overall operations of our facilities, including staff recruitment, general administration of the facilities, facility maintenance, security and supervision of the offenders. We also provide a variety of rehabilitative and educational programs at our facilities. Inmates at most facilities we manage may receive basic education through academic programs designed to improve inmate literacy levels and the opportunity to acquire GED certificates. We also offer vocational training to inmates who lack marketable job skills. Our craft vocational training programs are accredited by the National Craft Construction Education and Research. This organization provides training curriculum and establishes industry standards for over 4,000 construction and trade organizations in the United States and to several foreign countries. In addition, we offer life skills transition planning programs that provide inmates with job search skills, health education, financial responsibility training, parenting and other skills associated with becoming productive citizens. At many of our facilities, we also offer counseling, education and/or treatment to inmates with alcohol and drug abuse problems through our LifeLine and Strategies for Change programs. Equally significant, we offer cognitive behavioral programs aimed at changing the anti-social attitudes and behaviors of offenders. Our faith-based and religious programs offer all offenders the opportunity to practice their spiritual beliefs and these programs incorporate the use of thousands of volunteers, along with our staff, that assist in providing guidance, direction and post incarceration services to offenders. We believe these programs reduce recidivism.

We operate our facilities in accordance with both company and facility-specific policies and procedures. The policies and procedures reflect standards generated by a number of sources, to include the American Correctional Association, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, federal, state, and local government guidelines, established correctional procedures, and company-wide policies and procedures that may exceed these guidelines. Outside agency standards, such as those established by the ACA, provide us with the industry’s most widely accepted operational guidelines. Our facilities not only operate under these established standards (we have sought and received accreditation for 48 of the facilities we managed as of December 31, 2004) but are consistently challenged to exceed these standards. This challenge is presented, in large part, through an extensive, comprehensive Quality Assurance Program. We intend to apply for ACA accreditation for all of our eligible facilities where it is economically feasible to complete the 18-24 month accreditation process.

Our Quality Assurance Department, under the responsibility of our General Counsel, consists of two permanent audit teams, a Policy and Procedures Department, a Research and Data Analysis Team,

6

and an ACA Accreditation Team. Considerable resources have been devoted to the Quality Assurance Department, enabling them to monitor compliance with contractual requirements and outside agency standards, as well as tracking all efforts of the facilities to deliver the exceptional quality of services and operations expected.

Prisoner Transportation Services

We provide transportation services to governmental agencies through our wholly-owned subsidiary, TransCor America, LLC, or TransCor. TransCor is the largest third-party prisoner extradition company in the United States. Through a “hub-and-spoke” network, TransCor provides nationwide coverage to over 2,000 local and state agencies in all fifty states. During the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, TransCor generated total consolidated revenue of $19.1 million, $18.9 million, and $16.0 million, respectively, comprising 1.7%, 1.8%, and 1.7% of our total consolidated revenue in each respective year. We also provide transportation services to our existing customers utilizing TransCor’s services. We believe TransCor provides a complementary service to our core business that enables us to quickly respond to our customers’ transportation needs.

Facility Portfolio

General

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

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

	•	Correctional Facilities. Correctional facilities house and provide contractually agreed upon programs and services to sentenced adult prisoners, typically prisoners on whom a sentence in excess of one year has been imposed.
	•	Detention Facilities. Detention facilities house and provide contractually agreed upon programs and services to prisoners being detained by the ICE, prisoners who are awaiting trial who have been charged with violations of federal criminal law, who are in the custody of the USMS, or state criminal law, and prisoners who have been convicted of crimes and on whom a sentence of one year or less has been imposed.
	•	Juvenile Facilities. Juvenile facilities house and provide contractually agreed upon programs and services to juveniles, typically defined by applicable federal or state law as being persons below the age of 18, who have been determined to be delinquents by a juvenile court and who have been committed for an indeterminate period of time but who typically remain confined for a period of six months or less. At December 31, 2004, the Company owned only one such juvenile facility. However, the operation of juvenile facilities is not considered part of the Company’s strategic focus.

7

•

Leased Facilities. Leased facilities are facilities that are within one of the above categories and that we own but do not manage.

Facilities and Facility Management Contracts

We own 42 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities in 14 states and the District of Columbia, three of which we lease to other operators. We also own two corporate office buildings. A substantial portion of our assets have been pledged to secure borrowings under our senior secured credit facility. Additionally, we currently manage 25 correctional and detention facilities owned by government agencies. The following table sets forth all of the facilities which we currently (i) own and manage, (ii) own, but are leased to another operator, and (iii) manage but are owned by a government authority. The table includes certain information regarding each facility, including the term of the primary management contract related to such facility, or, in the case of facilities we own but lease to another operator, the term of such lease. We have a number of management contracts and leases that expire in 2005 (or have expired) with no remaining renewal options. We continue to operate, and expect to continue to manage or lease these facilities, although we can provide no assurance that we will maintain our contracts to manage or lease these facilities, or when new contracts will be renewed.

8

9

10

11

		primary functional category to which it would be assigned would be that of correctional facilities and not detention facilities. It should be understood that the primary functional category to which multi-user facilities are assigned may change from time to time.
(C)		Remaining renewal options represents the number of renewal options, if applicable, and the term of each option renewal.
(D)		The facility is subject to a ground lease with the County of San Diego whereby the initial lease term is 18 years from the commencement of the contract, as defined. The County has the right to buy out all, or designated portions of, the premises at various times prior to the expiration of the term at a price generally equal to the cost of the premises, or the designated portion of the premises, less an allowance for the amortization over a 20-year period. Upon expiration of the lease, ownership of the facility automatically reverts to the County of San Diego.
(E)		The facility is subject to a purchase option held by Huerfano County which grants Huerfano County the right to purchase the facility upon an early termination of the contract at a price generally equal to the cost of the facility plus 80% of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, cumulated annually.
(F)		The facility is subject to a purchase option held by the Georgia Department of Corrections, or GDOC, which grants the GDOC the right to purchase the facility for the lesser of the facility’s depreciated book value or fair market value at any time during the term of the contract between us and the GDOC.
(G)		During the fourth quarter of 2004, 273 beds were completed and available for use while construction continues on the remaining 1,251 beds. We are currently pursuing new management contracts and other opportunities to take advantage of the beds that are available at the Stewart County Correctional Facility, but can provide no assurance that we will be successful in doing so.
(H)		The facility is subject to a purchase option held by the Tallahatchie County Correctional Authority which grants Tallahatchie County Correctional Authority the right to purchase the facility at any time during the contract at a price generally equal to the cost of the premises less an allowance for amortization over a 20-year period.
(I)		We have been notified by the state of Indiana that during the second quarter of 2005 it will remove all of its inmates from our 656-bed Otter Creek Correctional Facility to utilize available capacity within the State’s correctional system. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 642 Indiana inmates at the Otter Creek Correctional Facility. We are currently negotiating with existing customers, as well as new customers, to take advantage of the beds that will become available at this facility, but can provide no assurance that we will be successful in replacing the inmates that will be removed from this facility or that the per diem from any such customers will yield as much cash flow as we generated from the state of Indiana.
(J)		The state of Montana has an option to purchase the facility generally at any time during the term of the contract with us at fair market value, less the then present value of a pre-determined portion of per diem payments made to us by the state of Montana.
(K)		The facility is subject to a purchase option held by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, or ODC, which grants the ODC the right to purchase the facility at its fair market value at any time.
(L)		During the third quarter of 2003, all of the Wisconsin inmates housed at the North Fork Correctional Facility were transferred to the Diamondback Correctional Facility in order to satisfy a contractual provision mandated by the state of Wisconsin. Upon completion of the inmate transfers, North Fork Correctional Facility was closed and will remain closed for an indefinite period of time. We are currently pursuing new management contracts and other opportunities to take advantage of the beds that are available at the North Fork Correctional Facility, but can provide no assurance that we will be successful in doing so.
(M)		Upon the conclusion of the thirty-year ground lease with Shelby County, Tennessee, the facility will become the property of Shelby County. Prior to such time, if the County terminates the lease without cause, breaches the lease or the State fails to fund the contract, we may purchase the property for $150,000. If we terminate the lease without cause, or breach the contract, we will be required to purchase the property for its fair market value as agreed to by the County and us.
(N)		The state of Tennessee has the option to purchase the facility in the event of our bankruptcy, or upon an operational breach, as defined, at a price equal to the book value of the facility, as defined.
(O)		The District of Columbia has the right to purchase the facility at any time during the term of the contract at a price generally equal to the present value of the remaining lease payments for the premises. Upon expiration of the lease, ownership of the facility automatically reverts to the District of Columbia.
(P)		The alternative educational facility is currently configured to accommodate 900 at-risk juveniles and may be expanded to accommodate a total of 1,400 at-risk juveniles.

Facilities Under Construction or Development. On September 10, 2003, we announced our intention to complete construction of the Stewart County Correctional Facility located in Stewart County, Georgia. The anticipated cost to complete the Stewart facility is approximately $26.5 million, with completion estimated to occur during the second quarter of 2005. Construction on the 1,524-bed Stewart County Correctional Facility began in August 1999 and was suspended in May 2000. Our decision to complete construction of this facility is based on anticipated demand from several government customers having a need for inmate bed capacity in the Southeast region of the country. However, we can provide no assurance that we will be successful in utilizing the increased bed capacity resulting from this project.

12

On February 1, 2005, we commenced construction of the Red Rock Correctional Center, a new 1,596-bed correctional facility located in Eloy, Arizona. The facility is expected to cost approximately $75 million, and is slated for completion during the first quarter of 2006. The capacity at the new facility is intended primarily for our existing customers.

Business Development

General

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

Under the direction of our business development department and our senior management and with the aid, where appropriate, of certain independent consultants, we market our services to government agencies responsible for federal, state and local correctional facilities in the United States. Recently, the industry has experienced greater opportunities at the federal level, as needs are increasing within the BOP, the USMS, and the ICE. The BOP and USMS were our only customers that accounted for 10% or more of our total revenue, generating 15% and 14%, respectively, of total revenue in 2004, 16% and 14%, respectively, in 2003, and 14% and 12%, respectively, in 2002. Contracts at the federal level generally offer more favorable contract terms. For example, certain federal contracts contain “take-or-pay” clauses that guarantee us a certain amount of management revenue, regardless of occupancy levels.

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

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

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

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

Generally, government agencies responsible for correctional and detention services procure goods and services through RFPs and RFQs. Most of our activities in the area of securing new business are in the form of responding to RFPs. As part of our process of responding to RFPs, members of our management team meet with the appropriate personnel from the agency making the request to best determine the agency’s needs. If the project fits within our strategy, we submit a written response to the RFP. A typical RFP requires bidders to provide detailed information, including, but not limited to, the service to be provided by the bidder, its experience and qualifications, and the price at which

13

the bidder is willing to provide the services (which services may include the renovation, improvement or expansion of an existing facility or the planning, design and construction of a new facility). Based on the proposals received in response to an RFP, the agency will award a contract to the successful bidder. In addition to issuing formal RFPs, local jurisdictions may issue an RFQ. In the RFQ process, the requesting agency selects a firm believed to be most qualified to provide the requested services and then negotiates the terms of the contract with that firm, including the price at which its services are to be provided.

Competitive Strengths

We believe that we benefit from the following competitive strengths:

The Largest and Most Recognized Private Prison Operator. Our recognition as the industry’s leading private prison operator provides us with significant credibility with our current and prospective clients. We manage over 50% of all privately managed prison beds in the United States. We pioneered modern-day private prisons with a list of notable accomplishments, such as being the first company to design, build and operate a private prison and the first company to manage a private maximum-security facility under a direct contract with the federal government. We believe that we benefit from certain economies of scale in purchasing power for food services, health care services and other supplies.

Available Beds Within Our Existing Facilities. We currently have four facilities, our Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, North Fork Correctional Facility, Crowley County Correctional Facility and Prairie Correctional Facility, that are substantially vacant and provide us with approximately 5,500 available beds. On December 23, 2004, we were awarded a new contract from the BOP to house approximately 1,195 federal inmates at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. We expect to begin receiving inmates pursuant to this contract during the second quarter of 2005. We also have an additional facility located in Stewart County, Georgia, which is partially complete. This facility, which is expected to be completed during the second quarter of 2005, will bring approximately 1,500 additional beds on-line. In addition to the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, North Fork Correctional Center, Crowley County Correctional Facility, Prairie Correctional Facility, and the Stewart County Correctional Facility, which provide an aggregate of approximately 7,000 available beds, as of December 31, 2004, we had a total of five facilities that had 200 or more beds available at each facility, which we believe provides further potential for increased cash flow.

Diverse, High Quality Customer Base. We provide services under management contracts with a diverse client base of approximately 50 different customers that generally have credit ratings of single-A or better. In addition, with average inmate lengths of stay between three and five years and a majority of our contracts having terms between one and five years, our revenue base is relatively predictable and stable.

Proven Senior Management Team. Our senior management team has applied their prior experience and diverse industry expertise to significantly improve our operations, related financial results, and capital structure. Under our senior management team’s leadership, our average occupancy has increased from 84.8% in 2000 to 92.6% during the fourth quarter of 2004, while our average inmate per diem operating margin increased approximately 50% from $8.29 to $12.47 during the same period.

Financial Flexibility. As of December 31, 2004, we had cash on hand of $50.9 million, investments of $8.7 million, and $88.3 million available under a $125.0 million revolving credit facility. During the year ended December 31, 2004, we generated $126.0 million in cash through operating activities, and as of December 31, 2004, we had net working capital of $130.0 million. In addition, we have an

14

effective “shelf” registration statement under which we may issue up to approximately $280.0 million in equity or debt securities, preferred stock and warrants. The “shelf” registration statement provides us with the flexibility to issue additional equity or debt securities, preferred stock, and warrants from time to time when we determine that market conditions and the opportunity to utilize the proceeds from the issuance of such securities are favorable. Further, as a result of the completion of our recapitalization and refinancing transactions during the previous three years, we have significantly reduced our exposure to variable rate debt, lowered our after tax interest and dividend obligations associated with our outstanding debt and preferred stock, further increasing our cash flow, and now have no debt maturities on outstanding indebtedness until 2008. Also as a result of the completion of these capital transactions, covenants under our senior secured credit facility were amended to provide greater flexibility for, among other matters, incurring unsecured indebtedness, capital expenditures, and permitted acquisitions. At December 31, 2004, our total weighted average effective interest rate was 7.8% and our total weighted average debt maturity was 4.9 years. Standard & Poor’s currently rates our senior secured debt as “BB-” and our senior unsecured debt as “B.” Moody’s Investors Service currently rates our senior secured debt as “Ba3” and our senior unsecured debt as “B1.”

Business Strategy

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

Own and Operate High Quality Correctional and Detention Facilities. We believe that our clients choose an outsourced correctional services provider based primarily upon the quality of the service provided. Approximately 75% of the facilities we operated as of December 31, 2004 are accredited by the ACA, an independent organization of corrections industry professionals that establishes standards by which a correctional facility may gain accreditation. We believe that this percentage compares favorably to the percentage of government-operated adult prisons that are accredited by the ACA. The quality of our operations is further illustrated by the fact that for the three years ended December 31, 2004, we had an escape ratio at our adult prison facilities of 0.07 per 10,000 inmates compared with 5.1 per 10,000 inmates for the public sector (according to the 2002 Corrections Yearbook published by the Criminal Justice Institute). We have experienced wardens managing our facilities, with an average of over 23 years of corrections experience and an average tenure of over nine years with us.

Offer Compelling Value. We believe that our clients also seek a compelling value and service offering when selecting an outsourced correctional services provider. We believe that we offer a cost-effective alternative to our clients by reducing their correctional services costs. We attempt to accomplish this through improving operating performance and efficiency through the following key operating initiatives: (1) standardizing supply and service purchasing practices and usage; (2) outsourcing the purchase of food products and services nationwide; (3) improving inmate management, resource consumption and reporting procedures through the utilization of numerous technological initiatives; and (4) improving productivity and reducing employee turnover. We also intend to continue to implement a wide variety of specialized services that address the unique needs of various segments of the inmate population. Because the facilities we operate differ with respect to security levels, ages, genders and cultures of inmates, we focus on the particular needs of an inmate

15

population and tailor our services based on local conditions and our ability to provide services on a cost-effective basis.

Increase Occupancy. Our industry benefits from significant economies of scale, resulting in lower operating costs per inmate as occupancy rates increase. Our management team is pursuing a number of initiatives intended to increase occupancy through obtaining new and additional contracts. We are also focused on renewing and enhancing the terms of our existing contracts. Given our significant number of available beds, we believe we can increase operating cash flow from increased occupancy without incurring significant capital expenditures. During 2004, we completed the expansion of 1,652 beds at five of our existing facilities and in February 2005, began construction of our new 1,596-bed Red Rock Correctional Center located in Eloy, Arizona. We will also consider additional expansion opportunities or the development or purchase of new prison facilities that we believe have favorable investment returns and increase value to our stockholders.

The Corrections and Detention Industry

We believe we are well-positioned to capitalize on government outsourcing of correctional management services because of our competitive strengths and business strategy. The key reasons for this outsourcing trend include:

Growing United States Prison Population. The average annual growth rate of the prison population in the United States between December 1995 and December 2003 was 3.4%. The growth rate declined somewhat to 2.1% for the year ended December 31, 2003, with the sentenced state prison population rising by 1.6%. However, for the year ended December 31, 2003, the sentenced prison population for the federal government rose 6.2%. During 2003, the number of federal inmates increased 5.8%. Federal agencies are collectively our largest customer and accounted for 37% of our total revenues (when aggregating all of our federal contracts) for the year ended December 31, 2004. In December 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform Bill which includes several provisions relating to border security and illegal immigration. The Intelligence Reform Bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to, subject to appropriations, hire a total of 2,000 new border patrol agents over each of the next five years and increase the total available detention beds by 40,000 over the next five years. We believe these initiatives could lead to meaningful growth to the private corrections industry in general, and to our company in particular. We also believe growth will come from the growing demographic of the 18 to 24 year-old at-risk population. Males between 18 and 24 years of age have demonstrated the highest propensity for criminal behavior and the highest rates of arrest, conviction, and incarceration.

Prison Overcrowding. The significant growth of the prison population in the United States has led to overcrowding in the state and federal prison systems. In 2003, at least 22 states and the federal prison system reported operating at or above capacity. The federal prison system was operating at 39% above capacity at December 31, 2003.

Acceptance of Privatization. The prisoner population housed in privately managed facilities in the United States as of December 31, 2003 was approximately 95,500, or 6.5% of all inmates under federal and state jurisdiction. At December 31, 2003, 12.6% of all federal inmates and 5.7% of all state inmates were held in private facilities. Since December 31, 2000, the number of federal inmates held in private facilities has increased over 40%, while the number held in state facilities has remained relatively stable, decreasing 1.8%. Six states, all of which are our customers, housed at least 25% of their prison population in private facilities as of December 31, 2003 – New Mexico (44%), Alaska (31%), Montana (29%), Oklahoma (26%), Wyoming (26%), and Hawaii (25%).

16

Governmental Budgeting Constraints. We believe the outsourcing of prison management services to private operators allows governments to manage increasing inmate populations while simultaneously controlling correctional costs and improving correctional services. The use of facilities owned and managed by private operators allows governments to expand prison capacity without incurring large capital commitments required to increase correctional capacity. In addition, contracting with a private operator allows governmental agencies to add beds without making significant capital investment or incurring new debt. We believe these advantages translate into significant cost savings for government agencies. The President’s fiscal 2006 budget proposal released in February 2005 continues a moratorium on new prison construction initiated in the fiscal 2005 budget, while promoting more aggressive BOP contracting with state, local, and private sector prison providers. The President’s fiscal 2006 budget proposal also allocates $1.2 billion to the Office of Detention Trustee to support an average daily detainee population in excess of 60,000, representing a 29% increase over approved 2005 funding. We believe these views can lead to opportunities for our growth.

Government Regulation

Business Regulations

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

In addition, private prison managers are increasingly subject to government legislation and regulation attempting to restrict the ability of private prison managers to house certain types of inmates. Legislation has been enacted in several states, and has previously been proposed in the United States Congress, containing such restrictions. Although we do not believe that existing legislation will have a material adverse effect on us, there can be no assurance that future legislation would not have such an effect.

Environmental Matters

Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. As an owner of correctional and detention facilities, we have been subject to these laws, ordinances and regulations as the result of our, and our subsidiaries’, operation and management of correctional and detention facilities. Phase I environmental assessments have been obtained on substantially all of the facilities we currently own. The cost of complying with environmental laws could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

17

Americans with Disabilities Act

The correctional and detention facilities we operate and manage are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” but generally requires that public facilities such as correctional and detention facilities be made accessible to people with disabilities. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Although we believe we are in compliance, any additional expenditures incurred in order to comply with the ADA at our facilities, if deemed required, would not likely have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

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

Insurance

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

Insurance expense represents a significant component of our operating expenses. Each of our management contracts and the statutes of certain states require the maintenance of insurance. We maintain various insurance policies including employee health, workers’ compensation, automobile liability and general liability insurance. Because we are significantly self-insured for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile liability insurance, the amount of our insurance expense is dependent on claims experience, and our ability to control our claims experience. Our insurance policies contain various deductibles and stop-loss amounts intended to limit our exposure for individually significant occurrences. However, the nature of our self-insurance policies provides little protection for a deterioration in overall claims experience. Although we have experienced modest improvements in claims experience in both employee medical and workers’ compensation, we are developing strategies to improve the management of our future loss claims but can provide no assurance that these strategies will be successful. Additionally, we have not recently experienced the increases in general liability and other types of insurance we experienced over the past few years that resulted from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and due to concerns over corporate

18

governance and corporate accounting scandals. However, unanticipated additional insurance expenses resulting from adverse claims experience or an increasing cost environment for general liability and other types of insurance could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows. See “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Business and Industry – We are subject to necessary insurance costs.”

Employees

As of December 31, 2004, we employed approximately 15,420 employees. Of such employees, approximately 280 were employed at our corporate offices and approximately 15,140 were employed at our facilities and in our inmate transportation business. We employ personnel in the following areas: clerical and administrative, facility administrators/wardens, security, food service, medical, transportation and scheduling, maintenance, teachers, counselors and other support services.

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

We have not experienced a strike or work stoppage at any of our facilities. Approximately 1,200 employees at six of our facilities are represented by labor unions. This number includes approximately 550 employees at four facilities who have elected to be represented by a union. In the opinion of management, overall employee relations are generally considered good.

Competition

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

Seasonality and Quarterly Results

The Company’s business is somewhat subject to seasonal fluctuations. Because we are generally compensated for operating and managing facilities at an inmate per diem rate, our financial results are impacted by the number of calendar days in a fiscal quarter. Our fiscal year follows the calendar year and therefore, our daily profits for the third and fourth quarters include two more days than the first quarter (except in leap years) and one more day than the second quarter. Further, salaries and benefits represent the most significant component of operating expenses. Significant portions of the Company’s unemployment taxes are recognized during the first quarter, when base wage rates reset for state unemployment tax purposes. Finally, quarterly results are affected by the timing of the opening of new facilities and related start-up expenses which may conceal the impact of other seasonal influences. Because of these seasonality factors, results for any quarter are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved for the full fiscal year.

19

Risk Factors

As the owner and operator of correctional and detention facilities, we are subject to certain risks and uncertainties associated with, among other things, the corrections and detention industry and pending or threatened litigation in which we are involved. In addition, we are also currently subject to risks associated with our indebtedness. These risks and uncertainties set forth below could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements contained herein and elsewhere. The risks described below are not the only risks we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or those we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business operations. Any of the following risks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

Our results of operations are dependent on revenues generated by our jails, prisons and detention facilities, which are subject to the following risks associated with the corrections and detention industry.

We are subject to fluctuations in occupancy levels. While a substantial portion of our cost structure is fixed, a substantial portion of our revenues are generated under facility management contracts that specify per diem payments based upon occupancy. Under a per diem rate structure, a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in revenue and profitability. Average compensated occupancy for our facilities in operation for 2004, 2003, and 2002 was 94.7%, 93.0%, and 89.1%, respectively. Occupancy rates may, however, decrease below these levels in the future.

We may incur significant start-up and operating costs on new contracts before receiving related revenues, which may impact our cash flows and not be recouped. When we are awarded a contract to manage a facility, we may incur significant start-up and operating expenses, including the cost of constructing the facility, purchasing equipment and staffing the facility, before we receive any payments under the contract. These expenditures could result in a significant reduction in our cash reserves and may make it more difficult for us to meet other cash obligations. In addition, a contract may be terminated prior to its scheduled expiration and as a result we may not recover these expenditures or realize any return on our investment.

We are subject to termination or non-renewal of our government contracts. We typically enter into facility management contracts with governmental entities for terms of up to five years, with additional renewal periods at the option of the contracting governmental agency. Notwithstanding any contractual renewal option of a contracting governmental agency, 37 of our facility management contracts with the customers listed under “Business – Facility Portfolio – Facilities and Facility Management Contracts” have expired or are currently scheduled to expire on or before December 31, 2005. See “Business – Facility Portfolio – Facilities and Facility Management contracts.” One or more of these contracts may not be renewed by the corresponding governmental agency. In addition, these and any other contracting agencies may determine not to exercise renewal options with respect to any of our contracts in the future. Governmental agencies typically may also terminate a facility contract at any time without cause or use the possibility of termination to negotiate a lower fee for per diem rates. In the event any of our management contracts are terminated or are not renewed on favorable terms or otherwise, we may not be able to obtain additional replacement contracts. The non-renewal or termination of any of our contracts with governmental agencies could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity, including our ability to secure new facility management contracts from others.

20

Competition for inmates may adversely affect the profitability of our business. We compete with government entities and other private operators on the basis of cost, quality and range of services offered, experience in managing facilities and reputation of management and personnel. While there are barriers to entering the market for the management of correctional and detention facilities, these barriers may not be sufficient to limit additional competition. In addition, our government customers may assume the management of a facility we currently manage upon the termination of the corresponding management contract or, if such customers have capacity at their facilities, may take inmates currently housed in our facilities and transfer them to government run facilities. Since we are paid on a per diem basis with no minimum guaranteed occupancy under most of our contracts, the loss of such inmates and resulting decrease in occupancy would cause a decrease in our revenues and profitability. Further, many of our state customers are currently experiencing budget difficulties. These budget difficulties could result in decreases to our per diem rates, which could cause a decrease in our revenues and profitability.

We are dependent on government appropriations. Our cash flow is subject to the receipt of sufficient funding of and timely payment by contracting governmental entities. If the appropriate governmental agency does not receive sufficient appropriations to cover its contractual obligations, it may terminate our contract or delay or reduce payment to us. Any delays in payment, or the termination of a contract, could have an adverse effect on our cash flow and financial condition. In addition, as a result of, among other things, recent economic developments, federal, state and local governments have encountered, and may encounter, unusual budgetary constraints. As a result, a number of state and local governments are under pressure to control additional spending or reduce current levels of spending. Accordingly, we may be requested in the future to reduce our existing per diem contract rates or forego prospective increases to those rates. In addition, it may become more difficult to renew our existing contracts on favorable terms or otherwise.

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

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

Our ability to secure new contracts to develop and manage correctional and detention facilities depends on many factors outside our control. Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities. This possible growth depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates and sentencing patterns in various jurisdictions and acceptance of privatization. The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic

21

monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.

During January 2005, the Supreme Court declared the federal sentencing guidelines, previously considered mandatory, as unconstitutional, stating they violate defendants’ rights under the Sixth Amendment to be tried by a jury. The Supreme Court advised that federal judges should continue to use the federal sentencing guidelines as suggestions rather than mandatory guidelines. Although it is too early to predict the impact, if any, on our business, the ruling could lead to federal sentences becoming more varied which could lead to a reduction in the length of sentences at correctional facilities.

Moreover, certain jurisdictions recently have required successful bidders to make a significant capital investment in connection with the financing of a particular project, a trend that will require us to have sufficient capital resources to compete effectively. We may not be able to obtain these capital resources when needed. Additionally, our success in obtaining new awards and contracts may depend, in part, upon our ability to locate land that can be leased or acquired under favorable terms. Otherwise desirable locations may be in or near populated areas and, therefore, may generate legal action or other forms of opposition from residents in areas surrounding a proposed site.

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

In addition, private prison managers are increasingly subject to government legislation and regulation attempting to restrict the ability of private prison managers to house certain types of inmates, such as inmates from other jurisdictions or inmates at medium or higher security levels. Legislation has been enacted in several states, and has previously been proposed in the United States Congress, containing such restrictions. Such legislation may have an adverse effect on us.

Our inmate transportation subsidiary, TransCor, is subject to regulations stipulated by the Departments of Transportation and Justice. TransCor must also comply with the Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of 2000, which covers operational aspects of transporting prisoners, including, but not limited to, background checks and drug testing of employees; employee training; employee hours; staff-to-inmate ratios; prisoner restraints; communication with local law enforcement; and standards to help ensure the safety of prisoners during transport. We are subject to changes in such regulations, which could result in an increase in the cost of our transportation operations.

22

Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) has published for comment a petition for rulemaking, filed on behalf of an inmate family, which would prevent private prison managers from collecting commissions from the operations of inmate telephone systems. We believe that there are sound reasons for the collection of such commissions by all operators of prisons, whether public or private. The FCC has traditionally deferred from rulemaking in this area; however, there is the risk that the FCC could act to prohibit private prison managers, like us, from collecting such revenues. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Government agencies may investigate and audit our contracts and, if any improprieties are found, we may be required to refund revenues we have received, to forego anticipated revenues, and we may be subject to penalties and sanctions, including prohibitions on our bidding in response to RFPs. Certain of the governmental agencies we contract with have the authority to audit and investigate our contracts with them. As part of that process, government agencies may review our performance of the contract, our pricing practices, our cost structure and our compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. For contracts that actually or effectively provide for certain reimbursement of expenses, if an agency determines that we have improperly allocated costs to a specific contract, we may not be reimbursed for those costs, and we could be required to refund the amount of any such costs that have been reimbursed. If a government audit asserts improper or illegal activities by us, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeitures of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or disqualification from doing business with certain government entities. Any adverse determination could adversely impact our ability to bid in response to RFPs in one or more jurisdictions.

We depend on a limited number of governmental customers for a significant portion of our revenues. We currently derive, and expect to continue to derive, a significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of governmental agencies. The loss of, or a significant decrease in, business from the BOP, ICE, USMS, or various state agencies could seriously harm our financial condition and results of operations. The three federal governmental agencies with correctional and detention responsibilities, the BOP, ICE, and USMS, accounted for 37% of our total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 ($429.6 million). The BOP accounted for 15% of our total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 ($177.9 million), and the USMS accounted for 14% of our total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 ($165.4 million). We expect to continue to depend upon the federal agencies and a relatively small group of other governmental customers for a significant percentage of our revenues.

We are dependent upon our senior management and our ability to attract and retain sufficient qualified personnel.

We are dependent upon the continued service of each member of our senior management team, including John D. Ferguson, our President and Chief Executive Officer. The unexpected loss of any of these persons could materially adversely affect our business and operations. We only have employment agreements with our President and Chief Executive Officer; Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Executive Vice President and Chief Corrections Officer; Executive Vice President and Chief Development Officer; and Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, all of which expire in 2005 subject to annual renewals unless either party gives notice of termination.

In addition, the services we provide are labor-intensive. When we are awarded a facility management contract or open a new facility, we must hire operating management, correctional officers and other personnel. The success of our business requires that we attract, develop and retain these personnel. Our inability to hire sufficient qualified personnel on a timely basis or the loss of

23

significant numbers of personnel at existing facilities could adversely affect our business and operations.

We are subject to necessary insurance costs.

Workers’ compensation, employee health and general liability insurance represent significant costs to us. Because we significantly self-insure for workers’ compensation, employee health, and general liability risks, the amount of our insurance expense is dependent on claims experience, our ability to control our claims experience, and in the case of workers’ compensation and employee health, rising health care costs in general. Further, additional terrorist attacks such as those on September 11, 2001, and concerns over corporate governance and corporate accounting scandals, could make it more difficult and costly to obtain liability and other types of insurance. Unanticipated additional insurance costs could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows, and the failure to obtain or maintain any necessary insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on us.

We may be adversely affected by inflation.

Many of our facility management contracts provide for fixed management fees or fees that increase by only small amounts during their terms. If, due to inflation or other causes, our operating expenses, such as wages and salaries of our employees, and insurance, medical and food costs, increase at rates faster than increases, if any, in our management fees, then our profitability would be adversely affected. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Inflation.”

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

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

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

Our ownership of correctional and detention facilities subjects us to risks typically associated with investments in real estate. Investments in real estate and, in particular, correctional and detention facilities have a limited or no alternative use and thus, are relatively illiquid, and therefore, our ability to divest ourselves of one or more of our facilities promptly in response to changed conditions is limited. Investments in correctional and detention facilities, in particular, subject us to risks involving potential exposure to environmental liability and uninsured loss. Our operating costs may be affected by the obligation to pay for the cost of complying with existing environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, as well as the cost of complying with future legislation. In addition, although we maintain insurance for many types of losses, there are certain types of losses, such as losses from earthquakes and acts of terrorism, which may be either uninsurable or for which it may

24

not be economically feasible to obtain insurance coverage, in light of the substantial costs associated with such insurance. As a result, we could lose both our capital invested in, and anticipated profits from, one or more of the facilities we own. Further, it is possible to experience losses that may exceed the limits of insurance coverage.

In addition, our increased focus on facility development and expansions poses an increased risk, including cost overruns caused by various factors, many of which are beyond our control, such as weather, labor conditions, and material shortages, resulting in increased construction costs.

Certain of our facilities are subject to options to purchase and reversions. Ten of our facilities are or will be subject to an option to purchase by certain governmental agencies. Such options are exercisable by the corresponding contracting governmental entity generally at any time during the term of the respective facility management contract. See “Business – Facility Portfolio – Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” If any of these options are exercised, there exists the risk that we will be unable to invest the proceeds from the sale of the facility in one or more properties that yield as much cash flow as the property acquired by the government entity. In addition, in the event any of these options are exercised, there exists the risk that the contracting governmental agency will terminate the management contract associated with such facility. For the year ended December 31, 2004, the facilities subject to these options generated $214.0 million in revenue (19% of total revenue) and incurred $155.0 million in operating expenses. Certain of the options to purchase are exercisable at prices below fair market value. See “Business – Facility Portfolio – Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.”

In addition, ownership of three of our facilities (including two that are also subject to options to purchase) will, upon the expiration of certain ground leases with remaining terms generally ranging from 12 to 14 years, revert to the respective governmental agency contracting with us. See “Business – Facility Portfolio – Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” At the time of such reversion, there exists the risk that the contracting governmental agency will terminate the management contract associated with such facility. For the year ended December 31, 2004, the facilities subject to reversion generated $78.5 million in revenue (7% of total revenue) and incurred $54.8 million in operating expenses.

We may be adversely affected by the rising cost and increasing difficulty of obtaining adequate levels of surety credit on favorable terms.

We are often required to post bid or performance bonds issued by a surety company as a condition to bidding on or being awarded a contract. Availability and pricing of these surety commitments are subject to general market and industry conditions, among other factors. Recent events in the economy have caused the surety market to become unsettled, causing many reinsurers and sureties to reevaluate their commitment levels and required returns. As a result, surety bond premiums generally are increasing. If we are unable to effectively pass along the higher surety costs to our customers, any increase in surety costs could adversely affect our operating results. We cannot assure you that we will have continued access to surety credit or that we will be able to secure bonds economically, without additional collateral, or at the levels required for any potential facility development or contract bids. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of surety credit on favorable terms, we would have to rely upon letters of credit under our senior secured credit facility, which would entail higher costs even if such borrowing capacity was available when desired at the time, and our ability to bid for or obtain new contracts could be impaired.

25

Our issuance of additional series of preferred stock could adversely affect holders of our common stock and discourage a takeover.

Our board of directors has the power to issue up to 50.0 million shares of preferred stock without any action on the part of our stockholders. Our board of directors also has the power, without stockholder approval, to set the terms of any new series of preferred stock that may be issued, including voting rights, dividend rights, preferences over our common stock with respect to dividends or in the event of a dissolution, liquidation or winding up and other terms. In the event that we issue additional shares of preferred stock in the future that has preference over our common stock, with respect to payment of dividends or upon our liquidation, dissolution or winding up, or if we issue preferred stock with voting rights that dilute the voting power of our common stock, the rights of the holders of our common stock or the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected. In addition, the ability of our board of directors to issue shares of preferred stock without any action on the part of our stockholders may impede a takeover of us and prevent a transaction favorable to our stockholders.

Our charter and bylaws and Maryland law could make it difficult for a third party to acquire our company.

The Maryland General Corporation Law and our charter and bylaws contain provisions that could delay, deter or prevent a change in control of our company or our management. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for our stockholders to elect directors and take other corporate actions. These provisions:

	•	authorize us to issue “blank check” preferred stock, which is preferred stock that can be created and issued by our board of directors, without stockholder approval, with rights senior to those of common stock;
	•	provide that directors may be removed with or without cause only by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the votes of shares entitled to vote thereon; and
	•	establish advance notice requirements for submitting nominations for election to the board of directors and for proposing matters that can be acted upon by stockholders at a meeting.

We are also subject to anti-takeover provisions under Maryland law, which could also delay or prevent a change of control. Together, these provisions of our charter and bylaws and Maryland law may discourage transactions that otherwise could provide for the payment of a premium over prevailing market prices for our common stock, and also could limit the price that investors are willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Leveraged Capital Structure

Our substantial indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under our debt securities.

We have a significant amount of indebtedness. As of December 31, 2004, we had total indebtedness of $1.0 billion. Our substantial indebtedness could have important consequences to you. For example, it could:

•

make it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations with respect to our indebtedness;

26

	•	increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
	•	require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures, and other general corporate purposes;
	•	limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we operate;
	•	place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt; and

•

limit our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance existing indebtedness on favorable terms.

Our senior secured credit facility and other debt instruments have restrictive covenants that could affect our financial condition.

The indenture related to our aggregate principal amount of $250.0 million 9.875% senior notes due 2009, the indenture related to our aggregate principal amount of $250.0 million 7.5% senior notes due 2011, the indenture related to our aggregate principal amount of $200.0 million 7.5% senior notes due 2011, collectively referred to herein as our senior notes, and our senior secured credit facility contain financial and other restrictive covenants that limit our ability to engage in activities that may be in our long-term best interests. Our ability to borrow under our senior secured credit facility is subject to financial covenants, including leverage, interest rate and fixed charge coverage ratios. Our senior secured credit facility limits our ability to effect mergers, asset sales and change of control events. These covenants also contain restrictions regarding our ability to make certain capital expenditures in the future. The indentures related to our senior notes contain limitations on our ability to effect mergers and change of control events, as well as other limitations, including:

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

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

Servicing our indebtedness will require a significant amount of cash. Our ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our control.

Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is

27

subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control.

The risk exists that our business will be unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will not be available to us under our senior secured credit facility in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness, including our existing senior notes, or new debt securities, or to fund our other liquidity needs. We may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness, including our senior notes, or new debt securities, on or before maturity. We may not, however, be able to refinance any of our indebtedness, including our senior secured credit facility and including our senior notes, or new debt securities on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Because portions of our indebtedness have floating interest rates, a general increase in interest rates will adversely affect cash flows.

Our senior secured credit facility bears interest at a variable rate. To the extent our exposure to increases in interest rates is not eliminated through interest rate protection agreements, such increases will adversely affect our cash flows. We do not currently have any interest rate protection agreements in place to protect against interest rate fluctuations related to our senior secured credit facility. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for a further discussion of our exposure to interest rate increases.

We are required to repurchase all or a portion of our senior notes upon a change of control.

Upon certain change of control events, as that term is defined in the indentures for our senior notes, including a change of control caused by an unsolicited third party, we are required to make an offer in cash to repurchase all or any part of each holder’s notes at a repurchase price equal to 101% of the principal thereof, plus accrued interest. The source of funds for any such repurchase would be our available cash or cash generated from operations or other sources, including borrowings, sales of equity or funds provided by a new controlling person or entity. Sufficient funds may not be available to us, however, at the time of any change of control event to repurchase all or a portion of the tendered notes pursuant to this requirement. Our failure to offer to repurchase notes, or to repurchase notes tendered, following a change of control will result in a default under the respective indentures, which could lead to a cross-default under our senior secured credit facility and under the terms of our other indebtedness. In addition, our senior secured credit facility prohibits us from making any such required repurchases. Prior to repurchasing the notes upon a change of control event, we must either repay outstanding indebtedness under our senior secured credit facility or obtain the consent of the lenders under our senior secured credit facility. If we do not obtain the required consents or repay our outstanding indebtedness under our senior secured credit facility, we would remain effectively prohibited from offering to purchase the notes.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES.

The properties we owned at December 31, 2004 are described under Item 1. and in Note 4 of the Notes to the Financial Statements contained in this annual report.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

General. The nature of our business results in claims and litigation alleging that we are liable for damages arising from the conduct of our employees, inmates or others. We maintain insurance to cover many of these claims which may mitigate the risk that any single claim would have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, provided the claim

28

is one for which coverage is available. The combination of self-insured retentions and deductible amounts means that, in the aggregate, we are subject to substantial self-insurance risk. In the opinion of management, other than those described below, there are no pending legal proceedings that would have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Adversarial proceedings and litigation are, however, subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable decisions and rulings could occur which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows for a period in which such decisions or rulings occur, or future periods.

The USCC ESOP Litigation. During the second quarter of 2002, we completed the settlement of certain claims made against us as the successor to U.S. Corrections Corporation (“USCC”), a privately-held owner and operator of correctional and detention facilities which was acquired by a predecessor of ours in April 1998, by participants in USCC’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”). As a result of the settlement, we made a cash payment of $575,000 to the plaintiffs in the action. As described below, we are currently in litigation with USCC’s insurer seeking to recover all or a portion of this settlement amount.

The USCC ESOP litigation, entitled Horn v. McQueen, continued to proceed, however, against two other defendants, Milton Thompson and Robert McQueen, both of whom were stockholders and executive officers of USCC and trustees of the ESOP prior to our acquisition of USCC. In the Horn litigation, the ESOP participants alleged numerous violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, including breaches of fiduciary duties to the ESOP by causing the ESOP to overpay for employer securities. On July 29, 2002, the United States District Court of the Western District of Kentucky found that McQueen and Thompson had breached their fiduciary duties to the ESOP and had acted to benefit themselves to the detriment of the ESOP participants. In January 2005, the Court determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover approximately $21 million in damages, including pre-judgment interest, from McQueen and Thompson.

In or about the second quarter of 2001, Northfield Insurance Co. (“Northfield”), the issuer of the liability insurance policy to USCC and its directors and officers, filed suit against McQueen, Thompson and us seeking a declaration that it did not owe coverage under the policy for any liabilities arising from the Horn litigation. Among other things, Northfield claimed that it did not receive timely notice of the litigation under the terms of the policy. McQueen and Thompson subsequently filed a cross-claim in the Northfield litigation against us in which they asserted we were obligated to indemnify them for any liability arising out of the Horn litigation, which could now total more than $21 million. Among other claims, McQueen and Thompson assert that, as the result of our alleged failure to timely notify the insurance carrier of the Horn case on their behalf, they were entitled to indemnification or contribution from us for any loss incurred by them as a result of the Horn litigation if there were no insurance available to cover the loss.

On September 30, 2002, the Court in the Northfield litigation found that Northfield was not obligated to cover McQueen and Thompson or us. Though it did not then resolve the cross-claim, the Court did note that there was no basis for excusing McQueen and Thompson from their independent obligation to provide timely notice to the carrier because of our alleged failure to provide timely notice to the carrier. On March 31, 2004 the United States District Court granted our summary judgment motion with respect to most of the contentions made by McQueen and Thompson in their effort to seek indemnification. In January 2005, we filed an additional motion for summary judgment on the remaining theory of liability asserted by McQueen and Thompson in the federal lawsuit. McQueen and Thompson have also filed a state court action essentially duplicating their cross-claim in the federal case, and we have initiated claims against the lawyer who jointly represented us, McQueen and Thompson in the Horn litigation. In addition, we have asserted claims

29

against McQueen and Thompson for indemnification for the $575,000 and attorneys’ fees incurred by us in connection with the Horn litigation.

We cannot predict whether we will be successful in recovering all or a portion of the amount we have paid in settlement of the Horn litigation. With respect to the cross-claim and the state court claims made by McQueen and Thompson, we believe that such claims are without merit and that we will be able to defend ourselves successfully against such claims and/or any additional claims of such nature that may be brought in the future; however, no assurance can be given that we will prevail in either the federal proceedings or the state proceedings. If we were ordered to indemnify McQueen and Thompson in whole or in part, such an outcome could have a material adverse affect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Corrections Facilities Development, LLC Litigation. During the first quarter of 2005, we settled a lawsuit we filed against Corrections Facilities Development, LLC (“CFD”) seeking a declaratory judgment regarding our obligations pursuant to a consulting agreement, as amended, with CFD and the validity of that agreement under applicable law. CFD had filed certain counterclaims against us. The settlement of that lawsuit has resulted in the dismissal of all claims and will not have a material adverse affect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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

None.

30

PART II.

ITEM 5.	MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES.

Market Price of and Distributions on Capital Stock

Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, under the symbol “CXW.” On March 1, 2005, the last reported sale price of our common stock was $37.53 per share and there were approximately 6,100 registered holders and approximately 31,000 beneficial holders, respectively, of our common stock.

The following table sets forth, for the fiscal quarters indicated, the range of high and low sales prices of the common stock.

Common Stock

Dividend Policy

During the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, we did not pay any dividends on our common stock. Pursuant to the terms of our senior secured credit facility, we are restricted from declaring or paying cash dividends with respect to outstanding shares of our common stock. Moreover, even if such restriction is ultimately removed, we currently do not intend to pay dividends with respect to shares of our common stock.

Recent Issuances of Unregistered Securities

The following description sets forth our issuances of unregistered equity securities during the year ended December 31, 2004 that have not been previously reported in a quarterly report on Form 10-Q or a current report on Form 8-K. Unless otherwise indicated, all equity securities were issued and sold in private placements pursuant to the exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), contained in Section 4(2) of the Securities Act and no underwriters were engaged in connection with the issuances of such equity securities.

Issuances to Directors. During the year ended December 31, 2004, we issued 1,680 shares of common stock to certain members of our board of directors who have elected to receive a portion of their compensation in shares of our common stock rather than in cash pursuant to our Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation Plan.

31

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.

The following selected financial data for the five years ended December 31, 2004, was derived from our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto. This data should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements, including the related notes, and “Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Our audited consolidated financial statements, including the related notes, as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002 are included in this annual report. In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”, all prior years presented have been reclassified to reflect discontinued operations.

32

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

(continued)

33

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

In connection with a merger completed in 1999, we elected to change our tax status from a taxable corporation to a real estate investment trust, or REIT, effective with the filing of our 1999 federal income tax return. As a REIT, we were dependent on a company, as a lessee, for a significant source of our income. In connection with a restructuring in 2000, we acquired the company on October 1, 2000 and two additional service companies on December 1, 2000, and amended our charter to remove provisions requiring us to elect to qualify and be taxed as a REIT. Therefore, the 2000 financial statements reflect our operation for a part of the year as an owner and lessor of prisons and other correctional facilities, and a part of the year as an owner, operator and manager of prisons and other correctional facilities. The financial statements for 2001 through 2004 reflect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows for a full year as an owner, operator and manager of prisons and other correctional facilities.

34

ITEM 7.	MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including, but not limited to, those described under “Risk Factors” and included in other portions of this report.

OVERVIEW

The Company

As of December 31, 2004, we owned 42 correctional, detention and juvenile facilities, three of which we lease to other operators. We currently operate 64 facilities, with a total design capacity of approximately 70,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. We are the nation’s largest owner and operator of privatized correctional and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States behind only the federal government and three states. Our size and experience provide us with significant credibility with our current and prospective customers, and enables us to generate economies of scale in purchasing power for food services, health care and other supplies and services we offer to our customers.

We are compensated for operating and managing prisons and correctional facilities at an inmate per diem rate based upon actual or minimum guaranteed occupancy levels. The significant expansion of the prison population in the United States has led to overcrowding in the state and federal prison systems, providing us with opportunities for growth. However, recent economic developments have caused federal, state, and local governments to experience unusual budgetary constraints, putting pressure on governments to control correctional budgets, including per diem rates our customers pay to us. Nonetheless, while these constraints have and are expected to continue to put pressure on our operating margins, we believe the outsourcing of prison management services to private operators allows governments to manage increasing inmate populations while simultaneously controlling correctional costs and improving correctional services. We believe our customers discover that partnering with private operators to provide residential services to their inmates introduces competition to their prison system, resulting in improvements to the quality and cost of corrections services throughout their correctional system. Further, the use of facilities owned and managed by private operators allows governments to expand prison capacity without incurring large capital commitments required to increase correctional capacity.

We also believe that having beds immediately available to our customers provides us with a distinct competitive advantage when bidding on new contracts. While we have been successful in winning contract awards to provide management services for facilities we do not own, and will continue to pursue such management contracts, we believe the most significant opportunities for growth are in providing our government partners with available beds within facilities we currently own or develop. We also believe that owning the facilities in which we provide management services enables us to more rapidly replace business lost compared with managed-only facilities, since we can offer the same beds to new and existing customers and, with customer consent, may have more flexibility in moving our existing inmate populations to facilities with available capacity. All of our management contracts generally provide our customers with the right to terminate our management contracts at any time without cause.

We currently have four correctional facilities, our Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, our North Fork Correctional Facility, our Crowley County Correctional Facility and our Prairie Correctional

35

Facility, which are substantially vacant and provide us with approximately 5,500 available beds. On December 23, 2004, we were awarded a new contract from the BOP to house approximately 1,195 federal inmates at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. We expect to begin receiving inmates pursuant to this contract during the second quarter of 2005. We also have an additional facility located in Stewart County, Georgia, which is partially complete. This facility, which is expected to be completed during the second quarter of 2005, will bring approximately 1,500 additional beds on-line. In addition to these facilities, as of December 31, 2004, we also had a total of five facilities that had 200 or more beds available at each facility, providing further potential for increased revenue and cash flow.

As a result of the completion of our recapitalization and refinancing transactions during the previous three years, we have significantly reduced our exposure to variable rate debt, lowered our after tax interest and dividend obligations associated with our outstanding debt and preferred stock, and now have no debt maturities on outstanding indebtedness until 2008. Also as a result of the completion of these capital transactions, covenants under our senior secured credit facility were amended to provide greater flexibility for, among other matters, incurring unsecured indebtedness, capital expenditures, and permitted acquisitions, providing us with the financial flexibility to afford the capital investments to create additional beds without unduly straining our capital structure. Standard and Poor’s currently rates our senior secured debt as “BB-” and our senior unsecured debt as “B.” Moody’s Investors Service currently rates our senior secured debt as “Ba3” and our senior unsecured debt as “B1.”

We are utilizing our financial flexibility and liquidity to strategically add bed capacity in a prudent manner. During 2004 we completed the expansion of 1,652 beds at five of our facilities, which we expect to fill with existing customers. In addition, during September 2003, we announced our intention to complete construction of our 1,524-bed Stewart County Correctional Facility located in Stewart County, Georgia, which is expected to be complete during the second quarter of 2005. During February 2005, we announced the commencement of construction of the Red Rock Correctional Center, a new 1,596-bed correctional facility located in Eloy, Arizona, which is expected to be complete during the first quarter of 2006.

We are also utilizing our financial flexibility and liquidity to continue making investments in technology. While we have been successful in reducing our variable expenses primarily by taking advantage of our purchasing power, we believe the largest opportunity for further reducing our operating expenses depends on our ability to modernize our facility operations through investments in technology. We believe investments in technology can enable us to operate safe and secure facilities with more efficient, highly skilled and better-trained staff, and to reduce turnover. Approximately 64% of our operating expenses consist of salaries and benefits. Containing these costs will continue to be challenging. Further, the turnover rate for correctional officers for our company, and for the corrections industry in general, remains high, and medical benefits for our employees continue to increase primarily due to continued rising healthcare costs throughout the country. Unlike the savings reaped in our variable operating expenses, reducing these staffing costs requires a long-term strategy to control such costs through the deployment of newly developed technologies, many of which are unique and new to the corrections industry.

Through the combination of our business development initiatives to increase our revenues by taking advantage of our available beds, and our strategies to generate savings and to contain our operating expenses, we believe we will be able to maintain our competitive advantage and continue to improve the quality services we provide to our customers at an economical price, thereby producing value to our stockholders.

36

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. As such, we are required to make certain estimates, judgments and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based upon the information available. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. A summary of our significant accounting policies is described in Note 2 to our audited financial statements. The significant accounting policies and estimates which we believe are the most critical to aid in fully understanding and evaluating our reported financial results include the following:

Asset impairments. As of December 31, 2004, we had $1.7 billion in long-lived assets. We evaluate the recoverability of the carrying values of our long-lived assets, other than goodwill, when events suggest that an impairment may have occurred. In these circumstances, we utilize estimates of undiscounted cash flows to determine if an impairment exists. If an impairment exists, it is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset exceeds the estimated fair value of the asset.

Goodwill impairments. Effective January 1, 2002, we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” or SFAS 142, which established new accounting and reporting requirements for goodwill and other intangible assets. Under SFAS 142, all goodwill amortization ceased effective January 1, 2002 and goodwill attributable to each of our reporting units was tested for impairment by comparing the fair value of each reporting unit with its carrying value. Fair value was determined using a collaboration of various common valuation techniques, including market multiples, discounted cash flows, and replacement cost methods. These impairment tests are required to be performed at adoption of SFAS 142 and at least annually thereafter. We perform our impairment tests during the fourth quarter, in connection with our annual budgeting process, and whenever circumstances indicate the carrying value of goodwill may not be recoverable.

Based on our initial impairment tests, we recognized an impairment of $80.3 million to write-off the carrying value of goodwill associated with our locations included in the owned and managed reporting segment during the first quarter of 2002. This goodwill was established in connection with the acquisition of a company during 2000. The remaining goodwill, which is associated with the facilities we manage but do not own, was deemed to be not impaired. This remaining goodwill was established in connection with the acquisitions of two service companies during 2000, both of which were privately-held service companies, that managed certain government-owned adult and juvenile prison and jail facilities. The implied fair value of goodwill of the locations included in the owned and managed reporting segment did not support the carrying value of any goodwill, primarily due to the highly leveraged capital structure. No impairment of goodwill allocated to the locations included in the managed-only reporting segment was deemed necessary, primarily because of the relatively minimal capital expenditure requirements, and therefore indebtedness, in connection with obtaining such management contracts. Under SFAS 142, the impairment recognized at adoption of the new rules was reflected as a cumulative effect of accounting change in our statement of operations for the first quarter of 2002. Impairment adjustments recognized after adoption, if any, are required to be recognized as operating expenses.

Income taxes. Income taxes are accounted for under the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes” (“SFAS 109”). SFAS 109 generally requires us to record deferred income taxes for the tax effect of differences between book and tax bases of our assets and liabilities.

37

Deferred income taxes reflect the available net operating losses and the net tax effect of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Realization of the future tax benefits related to deferred tax assets is dependent on many factors, including our past earnings history, expected future earnings, the character and jurisdiction of such earnings, unsettled circumstances that, if unfavorably resolved, would adversely affect utilization of our deferred tax assets, carryback and carryforward periods, and tax strategies that could potentially enhance the likelihood of realization of a deferred tax asset. Prior to the year ended December 31, 2003, we provided a valuation allowance to substantially reserve our deferred tax assets in accordance with SFAS 109. However, at December 31, 2003, we concluded that it was more likely than not that substantially all of our deferred tax assets would be realized. As a result, in accordance with SFAS 109, the valuation allowance applied to such deferred tax assets was reversed.

Removal of the valuation allowance resulted in a significant non-cash reduction in income tax expense. In addition, because a portion of the previously recorded valuation allowance was established to reserve certain deferred tax assets upon the acquisitions of two service companies during 2000, in accordance with SFAS 109, removal of the valuation allowance resulted in a reduction to the remaining goodwill recorded in connection with such acquisitions to the extent the reversal related to the valuation allowance applied to deferred tax assets existing at the date the service companies were acquired. In addition, removal of the valuation allowance resulted in an increase in our additional paid-in capital related to the tax benefits of exercises of employee stock options and of grants of restricted stock. The reduction to goodwill amounted to $4.5 million, while additional paid-in capital increased $2.6 million.

During 2003, the Internal Revenue Service (“the IRS”) completed its field audit of our 2001 federal income tax return. During the fourth quarter of 2004, the 2001 audit results underwent a review by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a division of the IRS. Based on that review, the IRS adjusted the carryback claims we filed on our 2001 and 2002 federal income tax returns, requiring us to repay approximately $16.3 million of refunds we received during 2002 and 2003 as a result of tax law changes provided by the “Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.” A portion of our tax loss was deemed not to be available for carryback to 1997 and 1996 due to our restructuring that occurred between 1997 and 2001. However, we will carry this tax loss forward to offset future taxable income. While the adjustment did not result in a loss of deductions claimed, we were obligated to repay the amount of the adjusted refund, plus interest of approximately $2.9 million, or $1.7 million after taxes, through December 31, 2004. These obligations were accrued in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2004, and were paid during the first quarter of 2005.

The repayment of the refund adjusted by the IRS resulted in an increase in the amount of deferred tax assets reflected on our balance sheet for the incremental net operating losses made available to offset taxable income in the future. Prior to this finding by the IRS, we expected to generate sufficient taxable income during 2005 to utilize our remaining federal net operating loss carryforwards. Although the increase in our net operating loss carryforwards resulting from the repayment effectively extends the date in which our net operating loss carryforwards are fully utilized, we nonetheless still expect to generate sufficient taxable income during 2005 to utilize all of our remaining federal net operating loss carryforwards. As a result, the IRS finding and corresponding payment effectively accelerated to the first quarter of 2005 the cash taxes we expected to pay more evenly throughout 2005, having no material impact on the total estimated cash flows for 2005.

Although we expect to utilize our remaining federal net operating losses in 2005, we have approximately $10.3 million in net operating losses applicable to various states that we expect to

38

carry forward in future years to offset taxable income in such states. These net operating losses begin expiring in 2005. Accordingly, we have a valuation allowance of $1.0 million for the estimated amount of the net operating losses that will expire unused, in addition to a $5.5 million valuation allowance related to state tax credits that are also expected to expire unused. Although our estimate of future taxable income is based on current assumptions we believe to be reasonable, our assumptions may prove inaccurate and could change in the future, which could result in the expiration of additional net operating losses or credits. We would be required to establish a valuation allowance at such time that we no longer expected to utilize these net operating losses or credits, which could result in a material impact on our results of operations in the future.

Self-funded insurance reserves. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, we had $34.4 million and $32.0 million, respectively, in accrued liabilities for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile insurance claims. We are significantly self-insured for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile liability insurance claims. As such, our insurance expense is largely dependent on claims experience and our ability to control our claims. We have consistently accrued the estimated liability for employee health insurance claims based on our history of claims experience and the time lag between the incident date and the date the cost is paid by us. We have accrued the estimated liability for workers’ compensation and automobile insurance claims based on a third-party actuarial valuation of the outstanding liabilities. These estimates could change in the future. It is possible that future cash flows and results of operations could be materially affected by changes in our assumptions, new developments, or by the effectiveness of our strategies.

Legal reserves. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, we had $17.2 million and $20.2 million, respectively, in accrued liabilities related to certain legal proceedings in which we are involved. We have accrued our estimate of the probable costs for the resolution of these claims based on a range of potential outcomes. In addition, we are subject to current and potential future legal proceedings for which little or no accrual has been reflected because our current assessment of the potential exposure is nominal. These estimates have been developed in consultation with our General Counsel’s office and, as appropriate, outside counsel handling these matters, and are based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. It is possible that future cash flows and results of operations could be materially affected by changes in our assumptions, new developments, or by the effectiveness of our strategies.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following table sets forth for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, the number of facilities we owned and managed, the number of facilities we managed but did not own, the number of facilities we leased to other operators, and the facilities we owned that were not yet in operation.

39

Year Ended December 31, 2004 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2003

During the year ended December 31, 2004, we generated net income available to common stockholders of $61.1 million, or $1.55 per diluted share, compared with net income available to common stockholders of $126.5 million, or $3.44 per diluted share, for the previous year. Contributing to the net income for 2004 compared to the previous year was an increase in operating income of $5.6 million, from $169.4 million during 2003 to $175.0 million during 2004 as a result of an increase in occupancy levels and new management contracts, partially offset by an increase in general and administrative expenses. Net income available to common stockholders was negatively impacted during 2004 as compared to 2003 due to the recognition of an income tax provision in accordance with SFAS 109 during 2004, amounting to $42.1 million, or $1.06 per diluted share, compared with an income tax benefit of $52.4 million, or $1.38 per diluted share during 2003. The income tax benefit during 2003 was primarily the result of our reversal of substantially all of the valuation allowance previously established for our deferred tax assets.

Net income available to common stockholders during 2004 was favorably impacted by the refinancing and recapitalization transactions completed during the second and third quarters of 2003. These transactions included the issuance of 6.4 million shares of common stock at a price of $19.50 per share, along with the issuances of an aggregate $450.0 million principal amount of 7.5% senior notes. The proceeds from these issuances were used to (i) purchase 3.4 million shares of common stock issued upon the conversion of our $40.0 million convertible subordinated notes with a stated rate of 10.0% plus contingent interest accrued at 5.5% (and to pay accrued interest on the notes through the date of purchase) at a price of $19.50 per share, (ii) purchase 3.7 million shares of our 12% series B preferred stock that were tendered in a tender offer at a price of $26.00 per share, including all accrued and unpaid dividends on such shares, (iii) redeem 4.0 million shares of our 8% series A preferred stock at a price of $25.00 per share, plus accrued dividends to the redemption date, and (iv) pay-down a portion of our senior bank credit facility. In connection with the debt issuance during the third quarter of 2003, we also obtained an amendment to our senior bank credit facility that, among other changes, lowered the interest rate applicable to the outstanding balance on the

40

facility. These refinancing and recapitalization transactions effectively reduced the average interest rates on a significant portion of our outstanding indebtedness, and substantially reduced the after-tax dividend obligations associated with our outstanding preferred stock. Partially offsetting the favorable impacts of the refinancing and recapitalization transactions, the Company recorded a non-cash gain of $2.9 million during 2003 associated with the extinguishment of a promissory note issued in connection with certain stockholder litigation that was settled during the first quarter of 2001. In addition, financial results for 2003 included a charge of $6.7 million for expenses associated with the refinancing and recapitalization transactions completed in the second and third quarters of 2003.

During the first and second quarters of 2004, the Company completed the redemption of the remaining shares of both series A and series B preferred stock at the stated rates of $25.00 per share and $24.46 per share, respectively, plus accrued dividends to the redemption date, and obtained an additional amendment to the senior bank credit facility further lowering the interest rate spread applicable to the term loan portion of the facility.

Our financial results were also favorably impacted by an increase in the amount of interest capitalized, from $0.9 million during 2003 to $5.8 million during 2004, in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 34, “Capitalization of Interest” associated with the construction and expansion projects during 2004 at six of our facilities. We funded these construction and expansion projects with cash on hand and with cash generated from operating activities.

Facility Operations

A key performance indicator we use to measure the revenue and expenses associated with the operation of the facilities we own or manage is expressed in terms of a compensated man-day, and represents the revenue we generate and expenses we incur for one inmate for one calendar day. Revenue and expenses per compensated man-day are computed by dividing facility revenue and expenses by the total number of compensated man-days during the period. A compensated man-day represents a calendar day for which we are paid for the occupancy of an inmate. We believe the measurement is useful because we are compensated for operating and managing facilities at an inmate per-diem rate based upon actual or minimum guaranteed occupancy levels. We also measure our ability to contain costs on a per-compensated man-day basis, which is largely dependent upon the number of inmates we accommodate. Further, per man-day measurements are also used to estimate our potential profitability based on certain occupancy levels relative to design capacity. Revenue and expenses per compensated man-day for all of the facilities we owned or managed, exclusive of those discontinued (see further discussion below regarding discontinued operations), were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003:

41

Business from our federal customers, including the Bureau of Prisons, or the BOP, the United States Marshals Service, or the USMS, and the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, remains strong, while many of our state customers continue to experience budget difficulties. Our federal customers generated 37% of our total revenue for both the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. While the budget difficulties experienced by our state customers present challenges with respect to our per-diem rates resulting in pressure on our management revenue in future quarters, these governmental entities are also constrained with respect to funds available for prison construction. We believe the lack of new bed supply combined with state budget difficulties has contributed to the increase in our occupancy and has led several states, some of which have never utilized the private sector, to outsource their correctional needs to us. We currently expect these trends to continue.

Additionally, as expected, we experienced a modest reduction in our operating margins during 2004 compared with 2003 as a result of recent contract awards for facilities we manage but do not own, which, as further described hereafter, provide per diem rates and operating margins at lower levels than our owned and managed business. We entered into these contracts knowing our overall per diem rates and operating margins would decrease slightly; however, the opportunity to both expand our level of service with existing customers and provide services to new customers with very little capital requirements outweighed the effects of the operating margin reductions. Our operating margins were also negatively impacted by the expenses incurred in connection with the resumption of operations and the process of ramping up occupancy at three of our facilities, the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio during the second and third quarters of 2004, the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility located in Tutwiler, Mississippi during the first and second quarters of 2004, and the managed-only Delta Correctional Facility located in Greenwood, Mississippi during the second quarter of 2004.

Operating expenses totaled $870.6 million and $766.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the operation and management of adult and juvenile correctional and detention facilities, and for our inmate transportation subsidiary.

Salaries and benefits represent the most significant component of fixed operating expenses. Approximately 64% of our operating expenses consist of salaries and benefits. During 2004, salaries and benefits expense at our correctional and detention facilities increased $66.4 million from 2003. The increase in salaries and benefits expense was primarily due to the commencement of operations during January 2004 at six correctional facilities located in Texas pursuant to management contracts awarded by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), as well as marginal increases in staffing levels at numerous facilities across the portfolio to meet rising inmate population needs. However, due to the increase in occupancy, actual salaries and benefits per compensated man-day declined $0.41 per compensated man-day during 2004 as compared to the prior year, as we were able to leverage our salaries and benefits over a larger inmate population. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in utilities expense of $0.08 per compensated man-day due to rising energy costs across the country.

While we were successful in containing or reducing most types of variable expenses, the reduction in variable operating expenses per compensated man-day to $9.25 per compensated man-day during 2004 from $9.75 per compensated man-day during 2003 was primarily due to a reduction in expenses related to legal proceedings in which we are involved, and a decrease in inmate medical expenses. Under the terms of the new Texas management contracts, the TDCJ retained responsibility for all inmate medical requirements.

42

The operation of the facilities we own carries a higher degree of risk associated with a management contract than the operation of the facilities we manage but do not own because we incur significant capital expenditures to construct or acquire facilities we own. Additionally, correctional and detention facilities have a limited or no alternative use. Therefore, if a management contract is terminated at a facility we own, we continue to incur certain operating expenses, such as real estate taxes, utilities, and insurance, that we would not incur if a management contract was terminated for a managed-only facility. As a result, revenue per compensated man-day is typically higher for facilities we own and manage than for managed-only facilities. Because we incur higher expenses, such as repairs and maintenance, real estate taxes, and insurance, on the facilities we own and manage, our cost structure for facilities we own and manage is also higher than the cost structure for the managed-only facilities. The following tables display the revenue and expenses per compensated man-day for the facilities we own and manage and for the facilities we manage but do not own:

The following discussions under “Owned and Managed Facilities” and “Managed-Only Facilities” address significant events that impacted our results of operations for the respective periods, and events that will affect our results of operations in the future.

Owned and Managed Facilities

During January 2004, we entered into an agreement with the state of Vermont to manage up to 700 inmates. The contractual agreement represents the first time the state of Vermont has partnered with the private corrections sector to provide residential services for its inmates. The contractual terms provide for the out-of-state management of male, medium-security Vermont inmates primarily in two of our owned and managed prisons in Kentucky, including Lee Adjustment Center in Beattyville, and Marion Adjustment Center in St. Mary. The influx of inmates from the state of Vermont during 2004, contributed $5.5 million in additional revenue.

43

Due to a combination of rate increases and/or an increase in population at four of our facilities, including our 2,304-bed Central Arizona Detention Center, 1,600-bed Florence Correctional Center, 1,232-bed San Diego Correctional Facility, and 866-bed D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility, primarily from the USMS, the ICE, and the District of Columbia, total management revenue increased during 2004 from the comparable period in 2003, by $33.5 million at these facilities.

During July 2004, an inmate disturbance at the Crowley County Correctional Facility located in Olney Springs, Colorado resulted in damage to the facility, requiring us to immediately transfer approximately 120 inmates to other of our facilities and approximately 65 inmates to facilities owned by the state of Colorado. As of December 31, 2004, repair of the facility was substantially complete. Revenues lost as a result of the transfer of inmates to the state of Colorado are expected to be mitigated by insurance. It is possible, however, that certain incremental costs resulting from the incident, and/or a portion of lost revenues, will not be recovered. Further, the timing of insurance recoveries and the further reduction of Colorado inmate populations since the disturbance has impacted, and management believes will continue to impact, short-term results.

During the third quarter of 2003, we transferred all of the Wisconsin inmates currently housed at our 1,440-bed medium security North Fork Correctional Facility located in Sayre, Oklahoma to our 2,160-bed medium security Diamondback Correctional Facility located in Watonga, Oklahoma in order to satisfy a contractual provision mandated by the state of Wisconsin. As a result of the transfer, North Fork Correctional Facility will remain closed for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, total management revenue decreased by $12.4 million at this facility during 2004 compared with 2003. We are currently pursuing new management contracts and other opportunities to take advantage of the beds that became available at the North Fork Correctional Facility, but can provide no assurance that we will be successful in doing so.

During 2004, as expected, the state of Wisconsin reduced the number of inmates housed at both our Diamondback Correctional Facility and our Prairie Correctional Facility by opening various facilities owned by the State. As further discussed below, the available beds at Diamondback Correctional Facility, which resulted from the declining inmate population from the state of Wisconsin, have been substantially filled with inmates from the state of Arizona. As of December 31, 2004, the state of Wisconsin housed 68 inmates at the Prairie Correctional Facility, compared with approximately 1,900 Wisconsin inmates held at various facilities at December 31, 2003.

During May 2004, we announced the completion of new agreements with the states of Minnesota and North Dakota to house portions of those states’ inmates at the 1,550-bed Prairie Correctional Facility. Under the Minnesota agreement, we are managing an unspecified number of medium-security, male inmates at the Prairie facility. The population will fluctuate based on the State’s needs and the space available at the Prairie facility. The terms of the contract include an initial one-year period through June 30, 2005, with two one-year renewal options. The North Dakota agreement, which became effective in March 2004, had an initial term through February 2005 with an indefinite number of annual renewal options. The state of North Dakota has not yet exercised its option to renew the contract. However, we continue to house inmates under the contract and expect to receive notification of the renewal in the short term. This contract, similar to the Minnesota agreement, does not indicate a specific inmate population to be managed by us and is also expected to vary based on the State’s needs and space availability. While inmates received pursuant to these contracts will partially offset the reduction in inmate populations from Wisconsin, in the near term we do not expect these inmate populations to reach the levels previously housed at this facility from Wisconsin. At December 31, 2004, we housed 147 Minnesota and 35 North Dakota inmates. We also housed 110 inmates from the state of Washington at this facility pursuant to a contract awarded mid-2004, as further described below.

44

During March 2004, we entered into an agreement with the state of Arizona to initially manage 1,200 Arizona inmates. The contractual terms provide for the out-of-state management of male, medium-security Arizona inmates at our Diamondback Correctional Facility. The initial contract term ended June 30, 2004, corresponding with Arizona’s fiscal year, and was renewed for one year on July 1, 2004. The contract allows for two more one year extension options. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 805 inmates from the state of Arizona at this facility.

During April 2004, we resumed operations at our 2,016-bed Northeast Ohio Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio. We are managing federal prisoners from United States federal court districts that are experiencing a lack of detention space and/or high detention costs. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 287 federal prisoners at this facility. The operating revenues for 2004 were $3.4 million while the operating expenses were $8.5 million and $0.3 million for 2004 and 2003, respectively, at our Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. We believed that re-opening this facility put us in a competitive position to win contract awards for the utilization of the facility.

On December 23, 2004, we received a contract award from the BOP to house approximately 1,195 federal inmates at our Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. The contract, awarded as part of the Criminal Alien Requirement Phase 4 Solicitation (“CAR 4”), provides for an initial four-year term with three two-year renewal options. The terms of the contract provide for a 50% guaranteed rate of occupancy for 90 days following a Notice to Proceed, and a 90% guaranteed rate of occupancy thereafter. We expect to begin receiving BOP inmates at this facility in the second quarter of 2005.

During June 2003, we announced our first inmate management contract with the state of Alabama to house up to 1,440 medium security inmates in our Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, located in Tutwiler, Mississippi, under a temporary emergency agreement to provide the state of Alabama immediate relief of its overcrowded prison system. The facility began receiving inmates in July 2003. Prior to receiving inmates from the state of Alabama, this facility was substantially idle. During January 2004, we received notice from the Alabama Department of Corrections that it would withdraw its inmates housed at the facility. Although the Alabama Department of Corrections withdrew all of their inmates from this facility by mid-March 2004, staffing levels were not reduced significantly at the facility due to negotiations with several potential customers to utilize the beds that became available at this facility. The facility incurred operating losses during 2004 and 2003 (including depreciation and amortization of $2.6 million and $2.5 million, respectively) of $3.6 million and $3.5 million, respectively.

During May 2004, we announced the completion of a contractual agreement to house inmates from the state of Hawaii at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility. The new agreement expires on June 30, 2006. In addition, during July 2004 we extended our current contracts to house Hawaiian inmates in our owned and operated Diamondback Correctional Facility, and our Florence Correctional Facility, located in Florence, Arizona for two additional years. Effective August 15, 2004, the combined contracts guarantee a minimum monthly average of 1,500 inmates to be housed at these three facilities. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 1,543 Hawaiian inmates at these three facilities, including 710 inmates at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility.

In addition, during June 2004, we announced the completion of a contractual agreement to house up to 128 maximum security inmates from the state of Colorado at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility. The terms of the contract include a one-year agreement effective through June 30, 2005, with four one-year renewal options. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 121 inmates from the state of Colorado at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility.

In addition, during October 2004, we announced the completion of a contractual agreement with the Mississippi Department of Corrections. We expect to manage an initial population of 128 of the

45

State’s maximum security inmates at the Tallahatchie facility. The terms of the contract include an initial period which concludes on June 30, 2006, and includes three one-year renewal options. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 127 Mississippi inmates at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility.

During July 2004, we announced the completion of a contractual agreement with the state of Washington Department of Corrections. We expect to continue managing male, medium-security inmates at our Prairie Correctional Facility and our Florence Correctional Facility pursuant to this contract. The terms of the contract include an initial one-year period through June 30, 2005, with an unspecified number of renewal options. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 301 Washington inmates at two of our facilities.

We have been notified by the state of Indiana that during the second quarter of 2005 it will remove all of its inmates from our 656-bed Otter Creek Correctional Facility located in Wheelwright, Kentucky to utilize available capacity within the State’s correctional system. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 642 Indiana inmates at the Otter Creek Correctional Facility. We are currently negotiating with existing customers, as well as new customers, to take advantage of the beds that will become available at this facility, but can provide no assurance that we will be successful in replacing the inmates that will be removed from this facility or that the per diem from any such customers will yield as much cash flow as we generated from the state of Indiana.

During the second quarter of 2005, we expect to complete construction on our Stewart County Correctional Facility. Although we currently do not have a contract to house inmates at the 1,524-bed facility, our decision to complete construction was based on anticipated demand from several government customers having a need for inmate bed capacity in the Southeast region of the country. However, we can provide no assurance that we will be successful in utilizing the increased bed capacity. Once construction is complete we will incur depreciation expense on the new facility and will cease capitalizing interest on this project, which will have a negative affect on our results of operations. During 2004, we capitalized $4.3 million in interest costs incurred on this facility. We estimate the book value of the facility to be approximately $70.0 million upon completion of construction. We also expect our occupancy percentage to decline slightly as a result of the additional vacant beds available at the Stewart facility, if we are unable to utilize the beds when they are ready for use.

Fixed expenses per compensated man-day for our owned and managed facilities increased from $29.34 during 2003 to $30.81 during 2004 due primarily to an increase in fixed operating expense for salaries and benefits and utilities across the portfolio of facilities we manage.

Variable expenses per compensated man-day for our owned and managed facilities decreased from $10.13 during 2003 to $9.96 for 2004 due to the aforementioned decrease in litigation expenses across the portfolio of facilities we manage.

Managed-Only Facilities

In November 2003, we announced that the TDCJ awarded us new contracts to manage six state correctional facilities, as part of a procurement re-bid process. The management contracts, all of which became effective January 15, 2004, consist of four jails and two correctional facilities. Based on the TDCJ recommendation, we also retained our contract to manage the Bartlett State Jail, but were not awarded the contract to continue managing the 1,000-bed Sanders Estes Unit located in Venus, Texas, which expired January 15, 2004. Total management revenue increased $45.2 million during 2004 compared with 2003, due to the operation of these facilities, net of a reduction in revenue for the management contract not renewed.

46

Total revenue per compensated man-day and total variable expenses per compensated man-day decreased for our managed-only facilities primarily because we did not assume responsibility for medical services for inmates provided under terms of our new contracts with the TDCJ. Eliminating this responsibility results in a lower per-diem rate; however, it also reduces the risk that our profitability will be eroded in the future by increasing medical costs. The new Texas contracts accounted for approximately 18% of the total revenue generated from the facilities we managed but did not own during 2004.

On March 23, 2004, we announced the completion of a contractual agreement with Mississippi’s Delta Correctional Authority to resume operations of the state-owned 1,016-bed Delta Correctional Facility located in Greenwood, Mississippi. We managed the medium security correctional facility for the Delta Correctional Authority from its opening in 1996 until the State closed the facility in 2002, due to excess capacity in the State’s corrections system. The March 2004 contract is for one year, with one two-year extension option. We began receiving inmates from the state of Mississippi at the facility on April 1, 2004. In addition, after completing the contractual agreement with the Delta Correctional Authority, we entered into an additional contract to manage inmates from Leflore County, Mississippi. This one-year contract provides for housing for up to 160 male inmates and up to 60 female inmates, and is renewable annually. As of December 31, 2004, we housed 955 and 127 inmates from the state of Mississippi and Leflore County, respectively.

Effective August 9, 2004, we elected to terminate our contract to manage the 63-bed Tall Trees juvenile facility owned by Shelby County and located in Memphis, TN. The operating revenues for this facility for during 2004 were $0.5 million, while the operating expenses were $0.9 million.

Our contract for the 1,440-bed David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center expires June 2005. Rather than renew the contract pursuant to its renewal provisions, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, the owner of the facility, decided to solicit a Request for Proposal, or RFP, for the management of the facility. We have provided a response to the RFP, but can provide no assurance that we will be selected for the continued management of this facility, or that a new contract would yield as much cash flow as our existing contract. This facility contributed $21.9 million in total revenue during 2004.

General and administrative expense

For the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, general and administrative expenses totaled $48.2 million and $40.5 million, respectively. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees and other administrative expenses, and increased from 2003 primarily due to an increase in salaries and benefits, combined with an increase in professional services during 2004 compared with 2003.

We have expanded our infrastructure over the past year to implement and support numerous technology initiatives, to maintain closer relationships with existing and potentially new customers in order to identify their needs, and to focus on reducing facility operating expenses. While this has resulted in an annual increase in general and administrative expense, we believe our expanded infrastructure and investments in technology will provide long-term benefits enabling us to provide enhanced quality service to our customers while creating scalable operating efficiencies.

During 2004, we also incurred increasing expenses associated with (a) the implementation of certain tax strategies, which contributed to a reduction in income tax expense during 2004, and (b) tax planning initiatives that we believe will lower our overall future effective tax rate. See “income tax expense” hereafter for additional information. We have also experienced increasing expenses over the prior year in complying with increasing corporate governance requirements, a significant portion of which was incurred to comply with section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We also

47

continue to evaluate the potential need to expand our corporate office infrastructure to help ensure the quality and effectiveness of our facility operations. These initiatives could also lead to higher general and administrative expenses in the future.

Interest expense, net

Interest expense was reported net of interest income and capitalized interest for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. Gross interest expense, net of capitalized interest, was $73.2 million and $78.0 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. Gross interest expense is based on outstanding borrowings under our senior bank credit facility, 9.875% senior notes, 7.5% senior notes, convertible subordinated notes payable balances, and amortization of loan costs and unused credit facility fees. The decrease in gross interest expense from the prior year was primarily attributable to the aforementioned recapitalization and refinancing transactions completed during the second and third quarters of 2003, which also resulted in a reduction to our preferred stock distributions from the prior year.

Gross interest income was $4.0 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. Gross interest income is earned on cash collateral requirements, a direct financing lease, notes receivable and investments of cash and cash equivalents.

Capitalized interest was $5.8 million and $0.9 million during 2004 and 2003, respectively, and was associated with various construction and expansion projects and the installation of a new inmate management system.

Expenses associated with debt refinancing and recapitalization transactions

For the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, expenses associated with debt refinancing and recapitalization transactions were $0.1 million and $6.7 million, respectively. The charges in 2004 were associated with the redemption of the remaining series A preferred stock in the first quarter of 2004 and the redemption of the remaining series B preferred stock in the second quarter of 2004, as well as third party fees associated with the amendment to our senior bank credit facility obtained during the second quarter of 2004.

Charges during the third quarter of 2003 primarily resulted from the write-off of existing deferred loan costs associated with the repayment of the term loan portion of our senior bank credit facility (which repayment was made with proceeds from the issuance of the $200.0 million 7.5% senior notes), premiums paid to defease the remaining outstanding 12% senior notes, and certain fees paid to amend the term portion of our senior bank credit facility. Charges during the second quarter of 2003 included expenses associated with the tender offer for our series B preferred stock, the redemption of our series A preferred stock, and the write-off of existing deferred loan costs associated with the repayment of the term loan portions of our senior bank credit facility made with proceeds from the common stock and note offerings, a tender premium paid to the holders of the 12% senior notes who tendered their notes to us at a price of 120% of par, and fees associated with the modifications to the terms of the $30.0 million of convertible subordinated notes.

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

On May 16, 2003, 0.3 million shares of common stock were issued, along with a $2.9 million subordinated promissory note, in connection with the final settlement of the state court portion of our stockholder litigation settlement reached during the first quarter of 2001. Under the terms of the promissory note, the note and accrued interest were extinguished in June 2003 once the average closing price of our common stock exceeded a “termination price” equal to $16.30 per share for

48

fifteen consecutive trading days following the note’s issuance. The terms of the note, which allowed the principal balance to fluctuate dependent on the trading price of our common stock, created a derivative instrument that was valued and accounted for under the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” or SFAS 133, as amended. Since we had previously reflected the maximum obligation of the contingency associated with the state portion of the stockholder litigation on the balance sheet, the extinguishment of the note in June 2003 resulted in a $2.9 million non-cash gain during the second quarter of 2003.

Income tax benefit (expense)

During the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, our financial statements reflected an income tax provision of $42.1 million and an income tax benefit of $52.4 million, respectively. The income tax benefit during the year ended December 31, 2003 was primarily the result of our reversal of substantially all of the valuation allowance previously established for our deferred tax assets.

Deferred income taxes reflect the available net operating losses and the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Realization of the future tax benefits related to deferred tax assets is dependent on many factors, including our past earnings history, expected future earnings, the character and jurisdiction of such earnings, unsettled circumstances that, if unfavorably resolved, would adversely affect utilization of our deferred tax assets, carryback and carryforward periods, and tax strategies that could potentially enhance the likelihood of realization of a deferred tax asset. As further discussed under “Critical Accounting Policies – Income Taxes,” prior to December 31, 2003, we had not consistently demonstrated an ability to utilize our tax net operating losses within the carryforward period and therefore applied a valuation allowance to reserve substantially all of our net deferred tax assets in accordance with SFAS 109. As a result, our financial statements did not reflect a provision for income taxes, other than for certain state taxes. However, at December 31, 2003, we concluded that it was more likely than not that substantially all of our deferred tax assets would be realized. As a result, in accordance with SFAS 109, substantially all of the valuation allowance applied to such deferred tax assets was reversed on December 31, 2003. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2004 we began providing a provision for income taxes at a rate on income before taxes equal to the combined federal and state effective tax rates using current tax rates.

During 2003, the Internal Revenue Service completed its field audit of our 2001 federal income tax return. During the fourth quarter of 2004, the 2001 audit results underwent a review by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a division of the IRS. Based on that review, the IRS adjusted the carryback claims we filed on our 2001 and 2002 federal income tax returns, requiring us to repay approximately $16.3 million of refunds we received during 2002 and 2003 as a result of tax law changes provided by the “Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.” A portion of our tax loss was deemed not to be available for carryback to 1997 and 1996 due to our restructuring that occurred between 1997 and 2001. However, we will carry this tax loss forward to offset future taxable income. While the adjustment did not result in a loss of deductions claimed, we were obligated to repay the amount of the adjusted refund, plus interest of approximately $2.9 million, or $1.7 million after taxes, through December 31, 2004. These obligations were accrued in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2004, and were paid during the first quarter of 2005.

The repayment of the refund adjusted by the IRS resulted in an increase in the amount of deferred tax assets reflected on our balance sheet for the incremental net operating losses made available to offset taxable income in the future. Prior to this finding by the IRS, we expected to generate sufficient taxable income during 2005 to utilize our remaining federal net operating loss carryforwards.

49

Although the increase in our net operating loss carryforwards resulting from the repayment effectively extends the date in which our net operating loss carryforwards are fully utilized, we nonetheless still expect to generate sufficient taxable income during 2005 to utilize all of our remaining federal net operating loss carryforwards. As a result, the IRS finding and corresponding payment effectively accelerated to the first quarter of 2005 the cash taxes we expected to pay more evenly throughout 2005, having no material impact on the total estimated cash flows for 2005.

During the fourth quarter of 2004, we realized a net income tax benefit of $0.5 million resulting from the implementation of tax planning strategies that are also expected to reduce our future effective tax rate. Additionally, we recorded an income tax benefit of $1.4 million in the third quarter of 2004 which primarily resulted from a change in estimated income taxes associated with certain financing transactions completed during 2003, partially offset by changes in our valuation allowance applied to certain deferred tax assets.

Discontinued operations

During the fourth quarter of 2002, we were notified by the state of Florida of its intention to not renew our contract to manage the 96-bed Okeechobee Juvenile Offender Correctional Center located in Okeechobee, Florida, upon the expiration of a short-term extension to the existing management contract, which expired in December 2002. Upon expiration of the short-term extension, which occurred March 1, 2003, operation of the facility was transferred to the state of Florida. During 2003, the facility generated total revenue of $0.8 million, and incurred total operating expenses of $0.7 million. Additionally, the expiration of the contract resulted in the impairment of all goodwill previously recorded in connection with this facility, which totaled $0.3 million, during the first quarter of 2003. These results are reported as discontinued operations.

On March 18, 2003, we were notified by the Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Virginia of its intention to not renew our contract to manage the 1,500-bed Lawrenceville Correctional Center located in Lawrenceville, Virginia, upon the expiration of the contract, which occurred on March 22, 2003. During 2003, the facility generated total revenue of $4.6 million, and incurred total operating expenses of $5.3 million. Additionally, the expiration of the contract resulted in the impairment of all goodwill previously recorded in connection with this facility, which totaled $0.3 million, during the first quarter of 2003. Results for 2004 include residual activity from the operation of this facility, including primarily proceeds received from the sale of fully depreciated equipment. These results are reported as discontinued operations.

During the first quarter of 2004, we received $0.6 million in proceeds from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a settlement for repairs we previously made to a facility we formerly operated in Ponce, Puerto Rico. These proceeds, net of taxes, are presented as discontinued operations for year ended December 31, 2004.

Due to operating losses incurred at the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Center, we elected to not renew our contract to manage the facility upon the expiration of the contract. Accordingly, we transferred operation of the facility to the Nevada Department of Corrections on October 1, 2004. During 2004 and 2003, the facility generated total revenue of $6.1 million and $7.5 million, respectively, and incurred total operating expenses of $7.0 and $8.8 million, respectively.

50

Distributions to preferred stockholders

For the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, distributions to preferred stockholders totaled $1.5 million and $15.3 million. Following the completion of the common stock and notes offering in May 2003, we purchased approximately 3.7 million shares of series B preferred stock for approximately $97.4 million pursuant to the terms of a cash tender offer. The tender offer price for the series B preferred stock (inclusive of all accrued and unpaid dividends) was $26.00 per share. The tender premium payment of the difference between the tender price ($26.00) and the liquidation preference ($24.46) for the shares tendered was reported as a preferred stock distribution in the second quarter of 2003. During the second quarter of 2004, we redeemed the remaining 1.0 million outstanding shares of our series B preferred stock at a price of $24.46 per share, plus accrued dividends to the redemption date.

Also during the second quarter of 2003, we redeemed 4.0 million, or approximately 93%, of our 4.3 million shares of outstanding series A preferred stock at a price of $25.00 per share plus accrued dividends to the redemption date as part of the recapitalization. During the first quarter of 2004, we redeemed the remaining 0.3 million outstanding shares of our series A preferred stock at a price of $25.00 per share, plus accrued dividends to the redemption date.

Year Ended December 31, 2003 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2002

During the year ended December 31, 2003, we generated net income available to common stockholders of $126.5 million, or $3.44 per diluted share, compared with a net loss available to common stockholders of $28.9 million, or $0.82 per diluted share, for the previous year. Contributing to the net income for 2003 compared to the previous year was an increase in operating income of $40.8 million, from $128.6 million during 2002 to $169.4 million during 2003. The increase was due to the commencement of operations at our McRae Correctional Facility in December 2002 and the acquisition of the Crowley County Correctional Facility in January 2003, as well as increased occupancy levels and improved margins. Net income available to common stockholders during 2003 was favorably impacted by an income tax benefit of $52.4 million primarily due to the reversal of the valuation allowance previously established for our deferred tax assets. Weighted average common shares outstanding for 2003 includes the effect of our issuance of 6.4 million shares in connection with the recapitalization in May 2003.

Contributing to the net loss for 2002 was a non-cash charge for the cumulative effect of an accounting change for goodwill of $80.3 million, or $2.49 per diluted share, related to the adoption of SFAS 142, in addition to expenses associated with debt refinancing transactions of $36.7 million, or $1.14 per diluted share, during the second quarter of 2002. The debt refinancing completed during 2002 also contributed to the reduction in net interest expense, from $87.5 million during 2002 to $74.4 million during 2003. The cumulative effect of accounting change and the costs of refinancing were partially offset by an aggregate income tax benefit of $63.3 million, which included a cash income tax benefit of $32.2 million recognized during the first quarter of 2002 related to a change in tax law that became effective in March 2002, which enabled us to utilize certain of our net operating losses to offset taxable income generated in 1997 and 1996. In addition, $30.3 million of the income tax benefit in 2002 was due to the reduction of the tax valuation allowance applied to certain deferred tax assets arising primarily as a result of 2002 tax deductions based on a cumulative effect of accounting change for tax depreciation reported on our 2002 federal income tax return.

51

Facility Operations

Revenue and expenses per compensated man-day for all of the facilities we owned or managed, exclusive of those discontinued (see further discussion below regarding discontinued operations), were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002:

Business from our federal customers, including the Bureau of Prisons, or the BOP, the United States Marshals Service, or the USMS, and the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, remains strong, while many of our state customers have experienced budget difficulties. Our federal customers generated 37% and 33%, respectively, of our total revenue for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

Operating expenses totaled $766.5 million and $712.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the operation and management of adult and juvenile correctional and detention facilities, and for our inmate transportation subsidiary.

Salaries and benefits represent the most significant component of fixed operating expenses. During 2003, salaries and benefits expense increased $43.4 million from 2002. The increase in salaries and benefits expense was primarily due to the arrival of inmates at the McRae Correctional Facility beginning in December 2002 and the purchase of the Crowley County Correctional Facility in January 2003. Salaries and benefits per compensated man-day increased $0.50 per compensated man-day during 2003 from 2002.

We also experienced a trend of increasing insurance expense during 2003 compared with 2002. Because we are significantly self-insured for employee health, workers’ compensation, and automobile liability insurance, our insurance expense is dependent on claims experience and our ability to control our claims. Our insurance policies contain various deductibles and stop-loss amounts intended to limit our exposure for individually significant occurrences. However, the nature of our self-insurance provides little protection for a deterioration in claims experience or increasing employee medical costs in general.

We continue to incur increasing insurance expense due to adverse claims experience primarily resulting from rising healthcare costs throughout the country. We continue to develop new strategies to improve the management of our future loss claims, but can provide no assurance that these strategies will be successful. Additionally, general liability insurance costs have risen substantially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and other types of insurance, such as directors and

52

officers liability insurance, have increased due to several high profile business failures and concerns about corporate governance and accounting in the marketplace.

The reduction in variable operating expenses per compensated man-day to $9.75 per compensated man-day during 2003 from $10.18 per compensated man-day during 2002 was primarily due to the renegotiation of our contract for food services. We decided to outsource food services at almost all of the facilities we operate. Outsourcing our food services to one vendor for substantially all of the facilities we manage generated opportunities to produce economies of scale. We also achieved reductions in inmate medical expenses primarily due to the renegotiation of our management contract for the Correctional Treatment Facility located in the District of Columbia, as well as through the negotiation of a national contract with our pharmaceutical provider and reduced reliance on outsourced nursing.

The following tables display the revenue and expenses per compensated man-day for the facilities we own and manage and for the facilities we manage but do not own: