As used in this report, the terms “we,” “us,” “our,” “GEO” and the “Company” refer to The GEO Group, Inc., its consolidated subsidiaries and its unconsolidated affiliates, unless otherwise expressly stated or the context otherwise requires.

We are a leading provider of government-outsourced services specializing in the management of correctional, detention and mental health and residential treatment facilities in the United States, Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Canada. We operate a broad range of correctional and detention facilities including maximum, medium and minimum security prisons, immigration detention centers, minimum security detention centers and mental health and residential treatment facilities. Our correctional and detention management services involve the provision of security, administrative, rehabilitation, education, health and food services, primarily at adult male correctional and detention facilities. Our mental health and residential treatment services involve the delivery of quality care, innovative programming and active patient treatment, primarily at privatized state mental health. We also develop new facilities based on contract awards, using our project development expertise and experience to design, construct and finance what we believe are state-of-the-art facilities that maximize security and efficiency.

Our business was founded in 1984 as a division of The Wackenhut Corporation, or TWC, a multinational provider of global security services. We were incorporated in 1988 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of TWC. In July 1994, we became a publicly-traded company. In 2002, TWC was acquired by Group 4 Falck A/S, which became our new parent company. In July 2003, we purchased all of our common stock owned by Group 4 Falck A/S and became an independent company. In November 2003, we changed our corporate name to ”The GEO Group, Inc.” We currently trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “GEO.”

As of December 31, 2006, we operated a total of 62 correctional, detention and mental health and residential treatment facilities and had over 54,000 beds under management or for which we had been awarded contracts. We maintained an average facility occupancy rate of 96.1% for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, we had consolidated revenues of $860.9 million and consolidated operating income of $64.2 million.

We offer services that go beyond simply housing offenders in a safe and secure manner for our correctional and detention facilities. We offer a wide array of in-facility rehabilitative and educational programs. Inmates at most of our facilities can also receive basic education through academic programs designed to improve inmates’ literacy levels and enhance the opportunity to acquire General Education Development certificates. Most of our managed facilities also offer vocational training for in-demand occupations to inmates who lack marketable job skills. In addition, most of our managed facilities offer life skills/transition planning programs that provide inmates job search training and employment skills, anger management skills, health education, financial responsibility training, parenting skills and other skills associated with becoming productive citizens. We also offer counseling, education and/or treatment to inmates with alcohol and drug abuse problems at most of the domestic facilities we manage.

Our mental health facilities and residential treatment services primarily involve the provision of acute mental health and related administrative services to mentally ill patients that have been placed under public sector supervision and care. At these mental health facilities, we employ psychiatrists, physicians, nurses, counselors, social workers and other trained personnel to deliver active psychiatric treatment designed to diagnose, treat and rehabilitate patients for community reintegration.

We conduct our business through three reportable business segments: our U.S. corrections segment; our international services segment; and our GEO Care segment. We have identified these three reportable segments

On June 12, 2006, we sold in a follow-on public offering 3,000,000 shares of our common stock at a price of $35.46 per share (4,500,000 shares of its common stock at a price of $23.64 reflecting the 3 for 2 stock split). All shares were issued from treasury. The aggregate net proceeds (after deducting underwriter’s discounts and expenses) was approximately $100 million. On June 13, 2006, we utilized approximately $74.6 million of the proceeds to repay all outstanding debt under the term loan portion of our Senior Credit Facility. In addition, on August 11, 2006, we used $4.0 million of the proceeds of the offering to purchase from certain directors, executive officers and employees stock options that were currently outstanding and exercisable, and which were due to expire within the next three years. The balance of the net proceeds was used for general corporate purposes including working capital, capital expenditures and the acquisition of CPT.

On August 10, 2006, our board of directors declared a 3-for-2 stock split of our common stock. The stock split took effect on October 2, 2006 with respect to shareholders of record on September 15, 2006. Following the stock split, the shares outstanding increased from 13.0 million to 19.5 million. All relevant share and per share data has been adjusted to reflect the stock split.

On September 20, 2006, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among us and CentraCore Properties Trust, which we refer to as CPT. On January 24, 2007, we completed the acquisition of CPT pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 19, 2006, referred to as the Merger Agreement, by and among us, GEO Acquisition II, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of GEO, and CPT. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, CPT merged with and into GEO Acquisition II, Inc., referred to as the Merger, with GEO Acquisition II, Inc., being the surviving corporation of the Merger.

As a result of the Merger, each share of common stock of CPT was converted into the right to receive $32.5826 in cash, inclusive of a pro-rated dividend for all quarters or partial quarters for which CPT’s dividend had not yet been paid as of the closing date. In addition, each outstanding option to purchase CPT common stock having an exercise price less than $32.00 per share was converted into the right to receive the difference between $32.00 per share and the exercise price per share of the option, multiplied by the total number of shares of CPT common stock subject to the option. We paid an aggregate purchase price of approximately $427.6 million for the acquisition of CPT, inclusive of the payment of approximately $367.6 million in exchange for the common stock and the options, the repayment of approximately $40.0 million in CPT debt and the payment of approximately $20.0 million in transaction related fees and expenses. We financed the acquisition through the use of $365.0 million in new borrowings under a new Term Loan B and approximately $62.6 million in cash on hand.

On October 13, 2006, we acquired United Kingdom based Recruitment Solutions International (RSI) for approximately $2.3 million plus transaction related expenses. RSI is a privately-held provider of transportation services to The Home Office Nationality and Immigration Directorate. The acquisition of RSI did not materially impact our 2006 result of operations.

Additional information regarding significant events affecting us during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 is set forth in Item 7 below under Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

We operate each facility in accordance with our company-wide policies and procedures and with the standards and guidelines required under the relevant management contract. For many facilities, the standards and guidelines include those established by the American Correctional Association, or ACA. The ACA is an independent organization of corrections professionals, which establishes correctional facility standards and guidelines that are generally acknowledged as a benchmark by governmental agencies responsible for correctional facilities. Many of our contracts in the United States require us to seek and maintain ACA accreditation of the facility. We have sought and received ACA accreditation and re-accreditation for all such facilities. We achieved a median re-accreditation score of 97.9% in fiscal year 2006. Approximately 66% of our 2006 U.S. corrections revenue was derived from ACA accredited facilities. We have also achieved and maintained certification by the Joint Commission on Accreditation for Healthcare Organizations, or JCAHO, for our mental health facilities and two of our correctional facilities. We have been successful in achieving and maintaining accreditation under the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, or NCCHC, in a majority of the facilities that we currently operate. The NCCHC accreditation is a voluntary process which we have used to establish comprehensive health care policies and procedures to meet and adhere to the ACA standards. The NCCHC standards, in most cases, exceed ACA Health Care Standards.

Our primary potential customers are governmental agencies responsible for local, state and federal correctional facilities in the United States and governmental agencies responsible for correctional facilities in Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Other primary customers include state agencies in the U.S. responsible for mental health facilities, and other foreign governmental agencies.

Governmental agencies responsible for correctional and detention facilities generally procure goods and services through requests for proposals. A typical request for proposal requires bidders to provide detailed information, including, but not limited to, descriptions of the following: the services to be provided by the bidder, its experience and qualifications, and the price at which the bidder is willing to provide the services, which services may include the renovation, improvement or expansion of an existing facility, or the planning, design and construction of a new facility.

If the project meets our profile for new projects, we then will submit a written response to the request for proposal. We estimate that we typically spend between $100,000 and $200,000 when responding to a request for proposal. We have engaged and intend in the future to engage independent consultants to assist us in developing privatization opportunities and in responding to requests for proposals, monitoring the legislative and business climate, and maintaining relationships with existing customers.

Our state and local experience has been that a period of approximately 60 to 90 days is generally required from the issuance of a request for proposal to the submission of our response to the request for proposals; that between one and four months elapse between the submission of our response and the agency’s award for a contract; and that between one and four months elapse between the award of a contract and the commencement of construction of the facility, in the case of a new facility, or the management of the facility, in the case of an existing facility. If the facility for which an award has been made must be constructed, our experience is that construction usually takes between nine and 24 months, depending on the size and complexity of the project; therefore, management of a newly constructed facility typically commences between 10 and 28 months after the governmental agency’s award.

Our federal experience has been that a period of approximately 60 to 90 days is generally required from the issuance of a request for proposal to the submission of our response to the request for proposal; that between 12 and 18 months elapse between the submission of our response and the agency’s award for a contract; and that between four and 18 weeks elapse between the award of a contract and the commencement

We offer governmental agencies consultation and management services relating to the design and construction of new correctional and detention facilities and the redesign and renovation of older facilities. As of December 31, 2006, we had provided services for the design and construction of forty-three facilities and for the redesign and renovation of thirteen facilities.

Contracts to design and construct or to redesign and renovate facilities may be financed in a variety of ways. Governmental agencies may finance the construction of such facilities through the following:

We may also act as a source of financing or as a facilitator with respect to the financing of the construction of a facility. In these cases, the construction of such facilities may be financed through various methods including the following:

If the project is financed using direct governmental appropriations, with proceeds of the sale of bonds or other obligations issued prior to the award of the project or by us directly, then financing is in place when the contract relating to the construction or renovation project is executed. If the project is financed using project-specific tax-exempt bonds or other obligations, the construction contract is generally subject to the sale of such bonds or obligations. Generally, substantial expenditures for construction will not be made on such a project until the tax-exempt bonds or other obligations are sold; and, if such bonds or obligations are not sold, construction and therefore, management of the facility, may either be delayed until alternative financing is procured or the development of the project will be suspended or entirely cancelled. If the project is self-financed by us, then financing is generally in place prior to the commencement of construction.

Under our construction and design management contracts, we generally agree to be responsible for overall project development and completion. We typically act as the primary developer on construction contracts for facilities and subcontract with national general contractors. Where possible, we subcontract with construction companies that we have worked with previously. We make use of an in-house staff of architects and operational experts from various correctional disciplines (e.g. security, medical service, food service, inmate programs and facility maintenance) as part of the team that participates from conceptual design through final construction of the project. This staff coordinates all aspects of the development with subcontractors and provides site-specific services.

When designing a facility, our architects use, with appropriate modifications, prototype designs we have used in developing prior projects. We believe that the use of these designs allows us to reduce cost overruns and construction delays and to reduce the number of correctional officers required to provide security at a

We operate three regional U.S. offices and three international offices that provide administrative oversight and support to our correctional and detention facilities and allow us to maintain close relationships with our customers and suppliers. Each of our three regional U.S. offices is responsible for the facilities located within a defined geographic area. The regional offices perform regular internal audits of the facilities in order to ensure continued compliance with the underlying contracts, applicable accreditation standards, governmental regulations and our internal policies and procedures.

We have developed long-term relationships with our government customers and have been successful at retaining our facility management contracts. We have provided correctional and detention management services to the United States Federal Government for 19 years, the State of California for 18 years, the State of Texas for 18 years, various Australian state government entities for 14 years and the State of Florida for 12 years. These customers accounted for approximately 54.9% of our consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. Our strong operating track record has enabled us to achieve a high renewal rate for contracts. Our government customers typically satisfy their payment obligations to us through budgetary appropriations.

We have developed comprehensive expertise in the design, construction and financing of high quality correctional, detention and mental health facilities. In addition, we have extensive experience in overall facility operations, including staff recruitment, administration, facility maintenance, food service, healthcare, security, supervision, treatment and education of inmates. We believe that the breadth of our service offerings gives us the flexibility and resources to respond to customers’ needs as they develop. We believe that the relationships we foster when offering these additional services also help us win new contracts and renew existing contracts.

Our top three senior executives have over 57 years of combined industry experience, have worked together at our company for more than 15 years and have established a track record of growth and profitability. Under their leadership, our annual consolidated revenues have grown from $40.0 million in 1991 to $860.9 million in 2006. Our Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley, is one of the pioneers of the industry, having developed and opened what we believe was one of the first privatized detention facilities in the U.S. in 1986. In addition to senior management, our operational and facility level management has significant operational experience and expertise.

Our objective is to provide federal, state and local governmental agencies with high quality, essential services at a lower cost than they themselves could achieve.

We manage our business on a contract by contract basis in order to maximize our operating margins. We typically refrain from pursuing contracts that we do not believe will yield attractive profit margins in relation to the associated operational risks. Generally, we do not engage in speculative development and do not build

We intend to capitalize on our long-term relationships with governmental agencies to continue to grow our correctional, detention and mental health facilities management services and to become a preferred provider of complementary government-outsourced services. These opportunities may include services which leverage our existing competencies and expertise, including the design, construction and management of large facilities, the training and management of a large workforce and our ability to service the needs and meet the requirements of government clients. We believe that government outsourcing of currently internalized functions will increase largely as a result of the public sector’s desire to maintain quality service levels amid governmental budgetary constraints. We believe that our successful expansion into the mental health and residential treatment services sector is an example of our ability to deliver higher quality services at lower costs in new areas of privatization.

As a global international provider of privatized correctional services, we are able to capitalize on opportunities to operate existing or new facilities on behalf of foreign governments. We currently have operations in Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa and Canada. We intend to further penetrate the current markets we operate in and to expand into new international markets which we deem attractive. For example, during the fourth quarter of 2004, we opened an office in the United Kingdom to vigorously pursue new business opportunities in England, Wales and Scotland. In March 2006, we entered into a contract to manage the operations of the 198-bed Campsfield House in Kidlington, United Kingdom. We began operations under this contract in the second quarter of 2006.

We consider acquisitions that are strategic in nature and enhance our geographic platform on an ongoing basis. On November 4, 2005, we acquired Correctional Services Corporation or CSC, bringing over 8,000 additional adult correctional and detention beds under our management. We will continue to review acquisition opportunities that may become available in the future, both in the privatized corrections, detention, mental health and residential treatment services sectors, and in complementary government outsourced services areas.

The following table summarizes certain information with respect to facilities that GEO (or a subsidiary or joint venture of GEO) operated under a management contract or had an award to manage as of December 31, 2006:

The following table sets forth the number of contracts that are subject to renewal or re-bid in each of the next five years:

We undertake substantial efforts to renew our contracts upon their expiration but we can provide no assurance that we will in fact be able to do so. Previously, in connection with our contract renewals, either we or the contracting government agency have typically requested changes or adjustments to contractual terms. As a result, contract renewals may be made on terms that are more or less favorable to us than in prior contractual terms.

Our contracts typically allow a contracting governmental agency to terminate a contract with or without cause by giving us written notice ranging from 30 to 180 days. If government agencies were to use these provisions to terminate, or renegotiate the terms of their agreements with us, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

In addition, in connection with our management of such facilities, we are required to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and related rules and regulations. Our contracts typically require us to maintain certain levels of coverage for general liability, workers’ compensation, vehicle liability, and property loss or damage. If we do not maintain the required categories and levels of coverage, the contracting governmental agency may be permitted to terminate the contract. In addition, we are required under our contracts to indemnify the contracting governmental agency for all claims and costs arising out of our management of facilities and, in some instances, we are required to maintain performance bonds relating to the construction, development and operation of facilities.

We compete primarily on the basis of the quality and range of services we offer; our experience domestically and internationally in the design, construction, and management of privatized correctional and detention facilities; our reputation; and our pricing. We compete directly with the public sector, where governmental agencies that are responsible for the operation of correctional, detention and mental health and residential treatment facilities are often seeking to retain projects that might otherwise be privatized. In the private sector, our U.S. corrections and international services business segments compete with a number of companies, including, but not limited to: Corrections Corporation of America; Cornell Companies, Inc.; Management and Training Corporation; Group 4 Securicor, Global Solutions, and Serco. Our GEO Care business segment competes with a number of different small-to-medium sized companies, reflecting the highly fragmented nature of the mental health and residential treatment services industry. Some of our competitors are larger and have more resources than we do. We also compete in some markets with small local companies that may have a better knowledge of the local conditions and may be better able to gain political and public acceptance.

At December 31, 2006, we had 10,253 full-time employees. Of such full-time employees, 195 were employed at our headquarters and regional offices and 10,058 were employed at facilities and international offices. We employ management, administrative and clerical, security, educational services, health services and general maintenance personnel at our various locations. Approximately 535 and 916 employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements in the United States and at international offices, respectively. We believe that our relations with our employees are satisfactory.

Under the laws applicable to most of our operations, and internal company policies, our correctional officers are required to complete a minimum amount of training. We generally require at least 160 hours of pre-service training before an employee is allowed to work in a position that will bring the employee in contact with inmates in our domestic facilities, consistent with ACA standards and/or applicable state laws. In addition to a minimum of 160 hours of pre-service training, most states require 40 or 80 hours of on-the-job training. Florida law requires that correctional officers receive 520 hours of training. We believe that our training programs meet or exceed all applicable requirements.

Our training program for domestic facilities begins with approximately 40 hours of instruction regarding our policies, operational procedures and management philosophy. Training continues with an additional 120 hours of instruction covering legal issues, rights of inmates, techniques of communication and supervision,

At least 240 and 160 hours of training are required for our employees in Australia and South Africa, respectively, before such employees are allowed to work in positions that will bring them into contact with inmates. Our employees in Australia and South Africa receive a minimum of 40 hours of additional training each year.

Many governmental agencies are required to enter into a competitive bidding procedure before awarding contracts for products or services. The laws of certain jurisdictions may also require us to award subcontracts on a competitive basis or to subcontract or partner with businesses owned by women or members of minority groups.

Certain states, such as Florida, deem correctional officers to be peace officers and require our personnel to be licensed and subject to background investigation. State law also typically requires correctional officers to meet certain training standards.

The failure to comply with any applicable laws, rules or regulations or the loss of any required license could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, our current and future operations may be subject to additional regulations as a result of, among other factors, new statutes and regulations and changes in the manner in which existing statutes and regulations are or may be interpreted or applied. Any such additional regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The nature of our business exposes us to various types of third-party legal claims, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with our facilities, programs, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner’s escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. In addition, our management contracts generally require us to indemnify the governmental agency against any damages to which the governmental agency may be subject in connection with such claims or litigation. We maintain insurance coverage for these general types of claims, except for claims relating to employment matters, for which we carry no insurance.

Claims for which we are insured arising from our U.S. operations that have an occurrence date of October 1, 2002 or earlier are handled by TWC and are commercially insured up to an aggregate limit of between $25.0 million and $50.0 million, depending on the nature of the claim and the applicable policy terms and conditions. With respect to claims for which we are insured arising after October 1, 2002, we maintain a general liability policy for all U.S. corrections operations with $52.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. On October 1, 2004, we increased our deductible on this general liability policy from $1.0 million to $3.0 million for each claim which occurs after October 1, 2004. GEO Care, Inc. is separately insured for general and professional liability. Coverage is maintained with limits of $10.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate subject to a $3.0 million self-insured retention. We also maintain various levels of insurance to cover property and casualty risks, workers’ compensation, medical malpractice, environmental liability and automobile liability. Our Australian subsidiary is required to carry tail insurance on a general liability policy providing an extended reporting period through 2011 related to a discontinued contract. We also carry various types of insurance with respect to our operations in South Africa, Australia and the United Kingdom. There can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover all claims to which we may be exposed.

Our international operations for fiscal years 2006 and 2005 consisted of the operations of our wholly-owned Australian subsidiaries, and of our consolidated joint venture in South Africa (South African Custodial Management Pty. Limited, or SACM). Through our wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Group Australia Pty. Limited, we currently manage five facilities in Australia. We operate one facility in South Africa through SACM. During the fourth quarter of 2004, we opened an office in the United Kingdom to pursue new business opportunities throughout Europe. On March 6, 2006, we were awarded a contract to manage the operations of the 198 bed Campsfield House in Kidlington, United Kingdom. We began operations under this contract in the second quarter of 2006. See Item 7 for more information on SACM. Financial information about our operations in different geographic regions appears in “Item 8. Financial Statements — Note 16 Business Segment and Geographic Information.”

Except for the major customers noted in the following table, no single customer provided more than 10% of our consolidated revenues during fiscal years 2006, 2005 or 2004:

Concentration of credit risk related to accounts receivable is reflective of the related revenues.

Additional information about us can be found at www.thegeogroupinc.com. We make available on our website, free of charge, access to our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, our annual proxy statement on Schedule 14A and amendments to those materials filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically submit such materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. In addition, the SEC makes available on its website, free of charge, reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, including GEO. The SEC’s website is located at http://www.sec.gov. Information provided on our website or on the SEC’s website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The following are certain of the risks to which our business operations are subject. Any of these risks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations. These risks could also cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements contained herein and elsewhere. The risks described below are not the only risks facing us. Additional risks not currently known to us or those we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business operations.

We have a significant amount of indebtedness. Our total consolidated long-term indebtedness as of December 31, 2006 was $145.0 million, excluding non recourse debt of $131.7 million and capital lease liability balances of $16.6 million. In addition, as of December 31, 2006, we had $54.5 million outstanding in letters of credit under the revolving loan portion of our senior secured credit facility. As a result, as of that date, we would have had the ability to borrow an additional approximately $45.5 million under the revolving loan portion of our Senior Credit Facility, subject to our satisfying the relevant borrowing conditions under the Senior Credit Facility with respect to the incurrence of additional indebtedness.

Additionally, on January 24, 2007, we completed the refinancing of our senior secured credit facility, referred to as the Senior Credit Facility through the execution of a Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, referred to as the Amended Senior Credit Facility. The Amended Senior Credit Facility consists of a $365 million 7-year term loan referred to as the Term Loan B and a $150 million 5-year revolver, expiring September 14, 2010, referred to as the Revolver. The initial interest rate for the Term Loan B is LIBOR plus 1.5% and the Revolver would bear interest at LIBOR plus 2.25% or at the base rate plus 1.25%. On January 24, 2007, we used the $365 million in borrowings under the Term Loan B to finance our acquisition of CPT. After giving effect to these borrowings, we currently have approximately $515 million in total consolidated long-term indebtedness, excluding non recourse debt of $131.7 million and capital lease liability balances of $16.6 million. Based on our debt covenants and the amount of indebtedness we have outstanding, we currently have the ability to borrow an additional approximately $55 million under our Amended Senior Credit Facility.

Our substantial indebtedness could have important consequences. For example, it could:

If we are unable to meet our debt service obligations, we may need to reduce capital expenditures, restructure or refinance our indebtedness, obtain additional equity financing or sell assets. We may be unable to restructure or refinance our indebtedness, obtain additional equity financing or sell assets on satisfactory terms or at all. In addition, our ability to incur additional indebtedness will be restricted by the terms of our Amended Senior Credit Facility and the indenture governing our outstanding 81/4 % Senior Unsecured Notes, referred to as the Notes.

The terms of the indenture governing the Notes and our Amended Senior Credit Facility restrict our ability to incur but do not prohibit us from incurring significant additional indebtedness in the future. In addition, we may refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness, including borrowings under our Amended Senior Credit Facility, and incur more indebtedness as a result. If new indebtedness is added to our and our subsidiaries’ current debt levels, the related risks that we and they now face could intensify. Additionally, on January 28, 2004, our universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 was declared effective by the SEC. The universal shelf registration statement provides for the offer and sale by us, from time to time, on a delayed basis of up to $200.0 million aggregate amount of certain of our securities, including our debt securities. On June 12, 2006 we completed a public offering of 4.5 million shares of our common stock (reflecting our recent 3-for-2 stock split) for approximately $110 million under the universal shelf registration statement. As a result, we have approximately $90 million remaining for the offer and sale by us of certain of our securities including our debt securities. Such debt securities could have rights superior to those of our existing indebtedness.

The indenture governing the Notes and our Amended Senior Credit Facility impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us and certain of our subsidiaries, which we refer to as restricted subsidiaries. These restrictions limit our ability to, among other things:

These restrictions could limit our ability to finance our future operations or capital needs, make acquisitions or pursue available business opportunities. In addition, our Amended Senior Credit Facility requires us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy certain financial covenants, including maintaining maximum senior and total leverage ratios, a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio, a minimum net worth and a limit on the amount of our annual capital expenditures. Some of these financial ratios become more restrictive over the life of the Amended Senior Credit Facility. We may be required to take action to reduce our indebtedness or to act in a manner contrary to our business objectives to meet these ratios and satisfy these covenants. Our failure to comply with any of the covenants under our Amended Senior Credit Facility and the indenture governing the Notes could cause an event of default under such documents and result in an acceleration of all of our outstanding indebtedness. If all of our outstanding indebtedness were to be accelerated, we likely would not be able to simultaneously satisfy all of our obligations under such indebtedness, which would materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to make payments on our indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control.

Our business may not be able to generate sufficient cash flow from operations or future borrowings may not be available to us under our Amended Senior Credit Facility or otherwise in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness or new debt securities, or to fund our other liquidity needs. We may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. However, we may not be able to complete such refinancing on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Our Amended Senior 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 Amended Senior Credit Facility. Our estimated total annual interest expense based on borrowings outstanding as of January 24, 2007 reflecting the acquisition of CPT is approximately $25.1 million. Based on estimated borrowings of $365 million outstanding under the Amended Senior Credit Facility, a one percent increase in the interest rate applicable to the Senior Credit Facility, will increase interest expense by $3.7 million.

In addition, effective September 18, 2003, we entered into interest rate swap agreements in the aggregate notional amount of $50.0 million. The agreements, which have payment and expiration dates that coincide with the payment and expiration terms of the Notes, effectively convert $50.0 million of the Notes into variable rate obligations. Under the agreements, we receive a fixed interest rate payment from the financial counterparties to the agreements equal to 8.25% per year calculated on the notional $50.0 million amount, while we make a variable interest rate payment to the same counterparties equal to the six-month London Interbank Offered Rate plus a fixed margin of 3.45%, also calculated on the notional $50.0 million amount. As a result, for every one percent increase in the interest rate applicable to the swap agreements, our total annual interest expense will increase by $0.5 million.

We generate a substantial portion of our revenues from distributions on the equity interests we hold in our subsidiaries. Therefore, our ability to meet our payment obligations on our indebtedness is substantially dependent on the earnings of our subsidiaries and the payment of funds to us by our subsidiaries as dividends, loans, advances or other payments. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and are not obligated to make funds available for payment of our other indebtedness in the form of loans, distributions or otherwise. Our subsidiaries’ ability to make any such loans, distributions or other payments to us will depend on their earnings, business results, the terms of their existing and any future indebtedness, tax considerations and legal or contractual restrictions to which they may be subject. If our subsidiaries do not make such payments to us, our ability to repay our indebtedness may be materially adversely affected. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, our subsidiaries accounted for 28.8% of our consolidated revenues, and, as of December 31, 2006 our subsidiaries accounted for 20.3% of our consolidated total assets.

Governmental agencies may terminate a facility contract at any time without cause or use the possibility of termination to negotiate a lower fee for per diem rates. They also generally have the right to renew facility contracts at their option. Notwithstanding any contractual renewal option, as of December 31, 2006, nine of our facility management contracts are scheduled to expire on or before December 31, 2007. These contracts represented 14.5% of our consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. Some or all of these contracts may not be renewed by the corresponding governmental agency. See “Business — Government Contracts — Rebids.” In addition, governmental agencies may determine not to exercise renewal options with respect to any of our contracts in the future. 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 other government customers.

Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities, because contracts to manage existing public facilities have not to date typically been offered to private operators. Public sector demand for new facilities may decrease and our potential for growth will depend on a number of factors we cannot control, including overall economic conditions, crime rates and sentencing patterns in jurisdictions in which we operate, governmental and public acceptance of the concept of privatization, and the number of facilities available for privatization.

The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of criminal enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices, or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances or a loosening of immigration laws could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.

In certain cases, the development and construction of facilities by us is subject to obtaining construction financing. Such financing may be obtained through a variety of means, including without limitation, the sale of tax-exempt or taxable bonds or other obligations or direct governmental appropriations. The sale of tax-exempt or taxable bonds or other obligations may be adversely affected by changes in applicable tax laws or adverse changes in the market for tax-exempt or taxable bonds or other obligations.

Moreover, certain jurisdictions, including California, where we have a significant amount of operations, have in the past required successful bidders to make a significant capital investment in connection with the financing of a particular project. If this trend were to continue in the future, we may not be able to obtain sufficient capital resources when needed to compete effectively for facility management contacts. 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. Our inability to secure financing and desirable locations for new facilities could adversely affect our results of operations and future growth.

We currently derive, and expect to continue to derive, a significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of governmental agencies. Of our 32 governmental clients, six customers accounted for over 50% of our consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. In addition, the three federal governmental agencies with correctional and detention responsibilities, the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which we refer to as ICE, and the Marshals Service, accounted for approximately 29.5% of our total consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, with the Bureau of Prisons accounting for approximately 9.8% of our total consolidated revenues for such period, the Marshals Service accounting for approximately 9.6% of our total consolidated revenues for such period, and ICE accounting for approximately 10.1% of our total consolidated revenues for such period. The loss of, or a significant decrease in, business from the Bureau of Prisons, ICE, or the U.S. Marshals Service or any other significant customers could seriously harm our financial condition and results of operations. We expect to continue to depend upon these federal agencies and a relatively small group of other governmental customers for a significant percentage of our revenues.

While a substantial portion of our cost structure is generally fixed, a significant portion of our revenues are generated under facility management contracts which provide for per diem payments based upon daily occupancy. We are dependent upon the governmental agencies with which we have contracts to provide inmates for our managed facilities. We cannot control occupancy levels at our managed facilities. Under a per diem rate structure, a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in revenues and profitability. When combined with relatively fixed costs for operating each facility, regardless of the occupancy level, a decrease in occupancy levels could have a material adverse effect on our profitability.

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. Barriers to entering the market for the management of correctional and detention facilities may not be sufficient to limit additional competition in our industry. In addition, our government customers may assume the management of a facility currently managed by us upon the termination of the corresponding management contract or, if such customers have capacity at the facilities which they operate, they may take inmates currently housed in our facilities and transfer them to government operated 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 both our revenues and our profitability.

Our cash flow is subject to the receipt of sufficient funding of and timely payment by contracting governmental entities. If the contracting 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 a material adverse effect on our cash flow and financial condition, which may make it difficult to satisfy our payment obligations on our indebtedness, including the Notes and the Senior Credit Facility, in a timely manner. The Governor of the State of Michigan’s veto in October 2005 of appropriations for our Michigan Correctional Facility in October 2005 is an example of this risk. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings. In addition, as a result of, among other things, recent economic developments, federal, state and local governments have encountered, and may continue to 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 at all.

The management and operation of correctional and detention facilities by private entities has not achieved complete acceptance by either governments or the public. Some governmental agencies have limitations on their ability to delegate their traditional management responsibilities for correctional and detention facilities to private companies and additional legislative changes or prohibitions could occur that further increase these limitations. In addition, the movement toward privatization of correctional and detention facilities has encountered resistance from groups, such as labor unions, that believe that correctional and detention facilities should only be operated by governmental agencies. Changes in dominant political parties could also result in significant changes to previously established views of privatization. Increased public resistance to the privatization of correctional and detention facilities in any of the markets in which we operate, as a result of these or other factors, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Any 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 existing contracts or to obtain new contracts or could result in the termination of an existing contract or the closure of one of our facilities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

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, including our payment obligations on the Notes and the Amended Senior Credit Facility. 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.

The industry in which we operate is subject to extensive federal, state and local regulations, including educational, environmental, 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 affects all areas of our operations. 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 are subject to background investigations. Certain jurisdictions also require us to award subcontracts on a competitive basis or to subcontract with businesses owned by members of minority groups. We may not always successfully comply with these and other regulations to which we are subject and failure to comply can result in material penalties or the non-renewal or termination of facility management contracts. In addition, changes in existing regulations could require us to substantially modify the manner in which we conduct our business and, therefore, could have a material adverse effect on us.

In addition, private prison managers are increasingly subject to government legislation and regulation attempting to restrict the ability of private prison managers to house certain types of inmates, such as inmates from other jurisdictions or inmates at medium or higher security levels. Legislation has been enacted in several states, and has previously been proposed in the United States House of Representatives, containing such restrictions. Although we do not believe that existing legislation will have a material adverse effect on us, future legislation may have such an effect on us.

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

Our success in obtaining new awards and contracts sometimes depends, in part, upon our ability to locate land that can be leased or acquired, on economically favorable terms, by us or other entities working with us in conjunction with our proposal to construct and/or manage a facility. Some locations may be in or near populous areas and, therefore, may generate legal action or other forms of opposition from residents in areas surrounding a proposed site. When we select the intended project site, we attempt to conduct business in communities where local leaders and residents generally support the establishment of a privatized correctional or detention facility. Future efforts to find suitable host communities may not be successful. In many cases, the site selection is made by the contracting governmental entity. In such cases, site selection may be made for reasons related to political and/or economic development interests and may lead to the selection of sites that have less favorable environments.

The nature of our business exposes us to various types of third-party legal claims, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with our facilities, programs, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner’s escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. In addition, our management contracts generally require us to indemnify the governmental agency against any damages to which the governmental agency may be subject in connection with such claims or litigation. We maintain insurance coverage for these general types of claims, except for claims relating to employment matters, for which we carry no insurance. However, the insurance we maintain to cover the various liabilities to which we are exposed may not be adequate. Any losses relating to matters for which we are either uninsured or for which we do not have adequate insurance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, any losses relating to employment matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Claims for which we are insured arising from our U.S. operations that have an occurrence date of October 1, 2002 or earlier are handled by TWC and are commercially insured up to an aggregate limit of between $25.0 million and $50.0 million, depending on the nature of the claim and the applicable policy terms and conditions. With respect to claims for which we are insured arising after October 1, 2002, we maintain a general liability policy for all U.S. corrections operations with $52.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. On October 1, 2004, we increased our deductible on this general liability policy from $1.0 million to $3.0 million for each claim which occurs after October 1, 2004. We also maintain insurance to cover property and casualty risks, workers’ compensation, medical malpractice, environmental liability and automobile liability. Our Australian subsidiary is required to carry tail insurance on a general liability policy providing an extended reporting period through 2011 related to a discontinued contract. We also carry various types of insurance with respect to our operations in South Africa, the United Kingdom and Australia. There can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover all claims to which we may be exposed.

Since our insurance policies generally have high deductible amounts (including a $3.0 million per claim deductible under our general liability and auto liability policies and a $2.0 million per claim deductible under our workers’ compensation policy), losses are recorded as reported and a provision is made to cover losses incurred but not reported. Loss reserves are undiscounted and are computed based on independent actuarial studies. Our management uses judgments in assessing loss estimates based on actuarial studies, which include actual claim amounts and loss development based on both GEO’s own historical experience and industry

Certain GEO facilities located in Florida and determined by insurers to be in high-risk hurricane areas carry substantial windstorm deductibles of up to $3.0 million. Since hurricanes are considered unpredictable future events, no reserves have been established to pre-fund for potential windstorm damage. Limited commercial availability of certain types of insurance relating to windstorm exposure in coastal areas and earthquake exposure mainly in California may prevent us from insuring our facilities to full replacement value.

Our government contracts require us to obtain and maintain specified insurance levels. The occurrence of any events specific to our company or to our industry, or a general rise in insurance rates, could substantially increase our costs of obtaining or maintaining the levels of insurance required under our government contracts, or prevent us from obtaining or maintaining such insurance altogether. If we are unable to obtain or maintain the required insurance levels, our ability to win new government contracts, renew government contracts that have expired and retain existing government contracts could be significantly impaired, which could have a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, our international operations accounted for approximately 12% of our consolidated revenues. We face risks associated with our operations outside the U.S. These risks include, among others, political and economic instability, exchange rate fluctuations, taxes, duties and the laws or regulations in those foreign jurisdictions in which we operate. In the event that we experience any difficulties arising from our operations in foreign markets, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We conduct substantially all of our operations in South Africa through joint ventures with third parties and may enter into additional joint ventures in the future. Our joint venture agreements generally provide that the joint venture partners will equally share voting control on all significant matters to come before the joint venture. Our joint venture partners may have interests that are different from ours which may result in conflicting views as to the conduct of the business of the joint venture. In the event that we have a disagreement with a joint venture partner as to the resolution of a particular issue to come before the joint venture, or as to the management or conduct of the business of the joint venture in general, we may not be able to resolve such disagreement in our favor and such disagreement could have a material adverse effect on our interest in the joint venture or the business of the joint venture in general.

We are dependent upon the continued service of each member of our senior management team, including George C. Zoley, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Wayne H. Calabrese, our Vice Chairman and President, and John G. O’Rourke, our Chief Financial Officer. Under the terms of their retirement agreements, each of these executives is currently eligible to retire at any time from GEO and receive significant lump sum retirement payments. The unexpected loss of any of these individuals could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. We do not maintain key-man life insurance to protect against the loss of any of these individuals.

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

Many of our facility management contracts provide for fixed management fees or fees that increase by only small amounts during their terms. While a substantial portion of our cost structure is generally fixed, if, due to inflation or other causes, our operating expenses, such as costs relating to personnel, utilities, insurance, medical and food, increase at rates faster than increases, if any, in our facility management fees, then our profitability could be materially adversely affected.

Our ownership of correctional and detention facilities subjects us to risks typically associated with investments in real estate. Investments in real estate, and in particular, correctional and detention facilities, are relatively illiquid and, therefore, our ability to divest ourselves of one or more of our facilities promptly in response to changed conditions is limited. Investments in correctional and detention facilities, in particular, subject us to risks involving potential exposure to environmental liability and uninsured loss. Our operating costs may be affected by the obligation to pay for the cost of complying with existing environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, as well as the cost of complying with future legislation. In addition, although we maintain insurance for many types of losses, there are certain types of losses, such as losses from earthquakes, riots and acts of terrorism, which may be either uninsurable or for which it may not be economically feasible to obtain insurance coverage, in light of the substantial costs associated with such insurance. As a result, we could lose both our capital invested in, and anticipated profits from, one or more of the facilities we own. Further, even if we have insurance for a particular loss, we may experience losses that may exceed the limits of our coverage.

When we are engaged to perform construction and design services for a facility, we typically act as the primary contractor and subcontract with other companies who act as the general contractors. As primary contractor, we are subject to the various risks associated with construction (including, without limitation, shortages of labor and materials, work stoppages, labor disputes and weather interference) which could cause construction delays. In addition, we are subject to the risk that the general contractor will be unable to complete construction at the budgeted costs or be unable to fund any excess construction costs, even though we typically require general contractors to post construction bonds and insurance. Under such contracts, we are ultimately liable for all late delivery penalties and cost overruns.

We are often required to post performance bonds issued by a surety company as a condition to bidding on or being awarded a facility development contract. Availability and pricing of these surety commitments is 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. In addition, we may not continue to have access to surety credit or 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 Credit Facility, which would entail higher costs even if such borrowing capacity was available when desired, and our ability to bid for or obtain new contracts could be impaired.

We have an active acquisition program, the objective of which is to identify suitable acquisition targets that will enhance our growth. The pursuit of acquisitions may pose certain risks to us. We may not be able to identify acquisition candidates that fit our criteria for growth and profitability. Even if we are able to identify such candidates, we may not be able to acquire them on terms satisfactory to us. We will incur expenses and dedicate attention and resources associated with the review of acquisition opportunities, whether or not we consummate such acquisitions. Additionally, even if we are able to acquire suitable targets on agreeable terms, we may not be able to successfully integrate their operations with ours. We may also assume liabilities in connection with acquisitions that we would otherwise not be exposed to.

The market price of our common stock has been subject to significant fluctuation. The market price of our common stock may continue to be subject to significant fluctuations in response to operating results and other factors, including:

In addition, the stock market in recent years has experienced price and volume fluctuations that often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies. These fluctuations, may harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating results.

Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales could occur, could adversely affect prevailing trading prices of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through future offerings of equity or equity-related securities. We cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales of shares of common stock or the availability of shares of common stock for future sale will have on the trading price of our common stock.

We are a Florida corporation and the anti-takeover provisions of Florida law impose various impediments to the ability of a third party to acquire control of our company, even if a change of control would be beneficial to our shareholders. In addition, provisions of our articles of incorporation may make an acquisition of us more difficult. Our articles of incorporation authorize the issuance by our board of directors of “blank check” preferred stock without shareholder approval. Such shares of preferred stock could be given voting rights, dividend rights, liquidation rights or other similar rights superior to those of our common stock, making a takeover of us more difficult and expensive. We also have adopted a shareholder rights plan, commonly known as a “poison pill,” which could result in the significant dilution of the proportionate ownership of any

If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and as such standards are modified, supplemented or amended from time to time, we may not be able to ensure that we can conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls could have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

In the future, we may issue additional debt securities which may be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants that could place restrictions on the operation of our business and the execution of our business strategy in addition to the restrictions on our business already contained in the agreements governing our existing debt. In addition, we may choose to issue debt that is convertible or exchangeable for other securities, including our common stock, or that has rights, preferences and privileges senior to our common stock. Because any decision to issue debt securities will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of any future debt financings and we may be required to accept unfavorable terms for any such financings. Accordingly, any future issuance of debt could dilute the interest of holders of our common stock and reduce the value of our common stock.

We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to finance the further expansion and continued growth of our business and do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. As a result, the success of an investment in our common stock will depend upon any future appreciation in its value. There is no guarantee that our common stock will appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which shareholders purchase their shares.

None.

Our corporate offices are located in Boca Raton, Florida, under a 10-year lease expiring 2013. In addition, we lease office space for our eastern regional office in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; our central regional office in New Braunfels, Texas; and our western regional office in Carlsbad, California. We also lease office space in Sydney, Australia, through our overseas affiliates, in Sandton, South Africa, and in Theale, England to support our Australian, South African, and UK operations, respectively.

See “Facilities” listing under Item 1 for a list of the correctional, detention and mental health properties we own or lease in connection with our operations.

On May 19, 2006, we, along with Corrections Corporation of America, referred to as CCA, were sued by an individual plaintiff in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County, Florida (Case No. 2005CA001884). The complaint alleges that, during the period from 1995 to 2004, we and CCA overbilled the State of Florida by an amount of at least $12.7 million by submitting to the State false claims for various items relating to (i) repairs, maintenance and improvements to certain facilities which we operate in Florida, (ii) our staffing patterns in filling vacant security positions at those facilities, and (iii) our alleged failure to meet the conditions of certain waivers granted to us by the State of Florida from the payment of liquidated damages penalties relating to our staffing patterns at those facilities. The portion of the complaint relating to us arises out of our operations at our South Bay and Moore Haven, Florida correctional facilities. The complaint appears to be based largely on the same set of issues raised by a Florida Inspector General’s Evaluation Report released in late June 2005, referred to as the IG Report, which alleged that us and CCA overbilled the State of Florida by over $12 million.

Subsequently, the Florida Department of Management Services, referred to as the DMS, which is responsible for administering our correctional contracts with the State of Florida, conducted a detailed analysis of the allegations raised by the IG Report which included a comprehensive written response to the IG Report which we had prepared and delivered to the DMS. In September 2005, the DMS provided a letter to us stating that, although its review had not yet been fully completed, it did not find any indication of any improper conduct by us. On October 17, 2006, DMS provided a letter to us stating that its review had been completed. We and DMS then agreed to settle this matter for $0.3 million. Although this determination is not dispositive of the recently initiated litigation, we believe it supports our position that we have valid defenses in this matter. We will continue to investigate this matter and intend to defend our rights vigorously. However, given the amounts claimed by the plaintiff and the fact that the nature of the allegations could cause adverse publicity to us, we believe that this matter, if settled unfavorably to us, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

On September 15, 2006, a jury in an inmate wrongful death lawsuit in a Texas state court awarded a $47.5 million verdict against us. Recently, the verdict was entered as a judgment against us in the amount of $51.7 million. On December 9, 2006, the trial court denied our post trial motions and we filed a notice of appeal on December 18, 2006. The lawsuit is being administered under an insurance program established by The Wackenhut Corporation, our former parent company, in which we participated until October 2002. Policies secured by us under that program provide $55 million in aggregate annual coverage. As a result, we believe we are fully insured for all damages, costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit and as such we have not taken any reserves in connection with the matter. The lawsuit stems from an inmate death which occurred at our former Willacy County State Jail in Raymondville, Texas, in April 2001, when two inmates at the facility attacked another inmate. Separate investigations conducted internally by us, The Texas Rangers and the Texas Office of the Inspector General, exonerated us and our employees of any culpability with respect to the incident. We believe that the verdict in the lawsuit is contrary to law and unsubstantiated by the evidence. Our insurance carrier has posted a supersedes bond in the amount at approximately $60.0 million to cover the judgment.

We own the 480-bed Michigan Correctional Facility in Baldwin, Michigan, referred to as the Michigan Facility. We operated the Michigan Facility from 1999 until October 2005 pursuant to a management contract with the Michigan Department of Corrections, or the MDOC. Separately, we leased the Michigan Facility, as lessor, to the State, as lessee, under a lease with an initial term of 20 years followed by two five-year options. In September 2005, the Governor of the State of Michigan closed the Michigan Facility and terminated the our management contract with the MDOC. In October 2005, the State of Michigan also sought to terminate its lease for the Michigan Facility. We believe that the State did not have the right to unilaterally terminate the Michigan Facility lease. As a result, in November 2005, we filed a lawsuit against the State to enforce our rights under the lease. On February 24, 2006, the Ingham County Circuit Court, the trial court with jurisdiction over the case, granted summary judgment in favor of the State and against us and granted us leave to amend the complaint. We filed an amended complaint and on September 13, 2006, the trial court granted summary judgment on the amended complaint in favor of the State and against us. We have filed a notice of appeal and

In June 2004, we received notice of a third-party claim for property damage incurred during 2002 and 2001 at several detention facilities that our Australian subsidiary formerly operated pursuant to its discontinued operation. The claim relates to property damage caused by detainees at the detention facilities. The notice was given by the Australian government’s insurance provider and did not specify the amount of damages being sought. In May 2005, we received additional correspondence indicating that the insurance provider still intends to pursue the claim against our Australian subsidiary. Although the claim is in the initial stages and we are still in the process of fully evaluating its merits, we believe that we have defenses to the allegations underlying the claim and intend to vigorously defend our rights with respect to this matter. While the insurance provider has not quantified its damage claim and the outcome of this matter discussed above cannot be predicted with certainty, based on information known to date, and management’s preliminary review of the claim, we believe that, if settled unfavorably, this matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We are uninsured for any damages or costs that it may incur as a result of this claim, including the expenses of defending the claim. We have accrued a reserve related to this claim based on our estimate of the most probable costs that may be incurred based on the facts and circumstances known to date, and the advice of our legal counsel.

The nature of the our business exposes us to various types of claims or litigation, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by our customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the our facilities, programs, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner’s escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. Except as otherwise disclosed above, we do not expect the outcome of any pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

No matters were submitted to a vote of our shareholders during the thirteen weeks ended December 31, 2006.

Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “GEO.” The following table shows the high and low prices for our common stock, as reported by the New York Stock Exchange, for each of the four quarters of fiscal years 2006 and 2005 and reflects the effect of the October 2, 2006 stock split. The prices shown have been rounded to the nearest $1/100. The approximate number of shareholders of record as of February 23, 2007, was 130 which includes shares held in street name.

We did not pay any cash dividends on our common stock for fiscal years 2006 and 2005. We intend to retain our earnings to finance the growth and development of our business and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future. Future dividends, if any, will depend, on our future earnings, our capital requirements, our financial condition and on such other factors as our Board of Directors may consider relevant. In addition, the indenture governing our $150.0 million 81/4% senior notes due in 2013, and our $175.0 million senior credit facility also place material restrictions on our ability to pay dividends. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis, Cash Flow and Liquidity” and “Item 8. Financial Statements — Note 10-Debt” for further description of these restrictions.

We did not buy back any of our common stock during 2006 and 2005. On August 10, 2006, our Board of Directors declared a 3-for-2 stock split of our common stock. The stock split took effect on October 2, 2006 with respect to stockholders of record on September 15, 2006. Following the stock split, our shares outstanding increased from 13.0 million to 19.5 million. All per share amounts have been retro-actively restated to reflect the 3-for-2 stock split.

The following table sets forth information about our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options, warrants and rights under all of our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2006, including our 1994 Second Stock Option Plan, our 1999 Stock Option Plan, our 2006 Stock Incentive Plan and our 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan. Our shareholders have approved all of these plans.

The following performance graph compares the performance of our common stock to the New York Stock Exchange Composite Index and to an index of peer companies we selected, and is provided in accordance with Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K.

Assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2001 in The GEO Group, Inc. common stock and the Index companies.

The selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the notes to the consolidated financial statements (in thousands, except per share data).