As Of                Filer                Filing    For·On·As Docs:Size              Issuer               Agent

 3/17/06  Geo Group Inc                     10-K        1/01/06    8:1.4M                                   Bowne of Atlanta Inc/FA

Document/Exhibit                   Description                      Pages   Size 

 1: 10-K        The Geo Group, Inc.                                 HTML   1.00M 
 2: EX-10.28    Asset Purchase Agreement                            HTML    216K 
 3: EX-21.1     Subsidiaries                                        HTML      6K 
 4: EX-23.1     Consent of Ernst & Young LLP                        HTML      8K 
 5: EX-31.1     Section 302 Certification of CEO                    HTML     13K 
 6: EX-31.2     Section 302 Certification of CFO                    HTML     13K 
 7: EX-32.1     Section 906 Certification of CEO                    HTML      9K 
 8: EX-32.2     Section 906 Certification of CFO                    HTML      9K 

Commission file number: 1-14260

Registrant’s telephone number (including area code):

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

      Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.     Yes o          No þ

      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 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 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 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.

      On November 4, 2005, we completed the acquisition of Correctional Services Corporation, or CSC, a Florida-based provider of privatized jail, community corrections and alternative sentencing services. The acquisition was completed through the merger of CSC into GEO Acquisition, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GEO, referred to as the Merger. Under the terms of the Merger, we acquired 100% of the 10.2 million outstanding shares of CSC common stock for $6.00 per share, or approximately $62.1 million in cash. As a result of the Merger, we became responsible for supervising the operation of the sixteen adult correctional and detention facilities, totaling 8,037 beds, formerly run by CSC. Immediately following the purchase of CSC, we sold Youth Services International, Inc., the former juvenile services division of CSC, for $3.75 million, $1.75 million of which was paid in cash and the remaining $2.0 million of which will be paid in the form of a three-year promissory note accruing interest at a rate of 6% per annum.

      On January 1, 2006, the last day of our 2005 fiscal year, our mental health subsidiary Atlantic Shores Healthcare, Inc., or ASH, completed the sale of its 72 bed private mental health hospital which it had owned and operated since 1997, for approximately $11.5 million. We recognized a gain on the sale of this transaction of approximately $1.6 million. The accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes reflect the operations of the hospital as a discontinued operation.

      Our business was founded in 1984 as a division of The Wackenhut Corporation, or TWC, and was incorporated in the State of Florida in 1988. On May 8, 2002, TWC consummated a merger with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Group 4 Falck A/ S, referred to as Group 4 Falck. As a result of the merger, Group 4 Falck became the indirect beneficial owner of TWC’s 12 million share majority interest in GEO. On July 9, 2003, we purchased all 12 million shares of our common stock from Group 4 Falck. On November 25, 2003, our corporate name was changed from “Wackenhut Corrections Corporation” to “The GEO Group, Inc”.

      As of January 1, 2006, we operated a total of 56 correctional, detention and mental health facilities and had over 48,370 beds under management or for which we had been awarded contracts. We maintained an average facility occupancy rate of 97.5% for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2006. For the fiscal year ended January 1, 2006, we had consolidated revenues of $612.9 million and consolidated operating income of $7.9 million.

      Additional information regarding significant events affecting us during the fiscal year ended January 1, 2006 is set forth in Item 7 below under Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

      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 residential 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 which is designed to diagnose, treat and rehabilitate patients for community reintegration.

      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 98.4% in fiscal year 2005. Approximately 72% of our 2005 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 both of 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

      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 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.

      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 January 1, 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, but not limited to, 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

      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 seek to utilize, 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 facility, thus controlling costs both to construct and to manage the facility. Our facility designs also maintain security because they increase the area under direct surveillance by correctional officers and make use of additional electronic surveillance.

      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 18 years, the State of California for 16 years, the State of Texas for 16 years, various Australian state government entities for 13 years and the State of Florida for 10 years. These customers accounted for approximately 60.4% of our consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended January 1, 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 believe that our ability to provide comprehensive facility development and design services enables us to retain existing customers seeking to update their facilities and to attract new customers by demonstrating the benefits of privatization. We have developed an expertise in the design, construction and financing of high quality correctional, detention and mental health facilities.

      Our top three senior executives have over 48 years of combined industry experience, have worked together at our company for more than 13 years and have established a track record of growth and

      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 facilities without having a corresponding management contract award in place. In addition, we have elected not to enter certain international markets with a history of economic and political instability. We believe that our strategy of emphasizing lower risk, higher profit opportunities helps us to consistently deliver strong operational performance, lower our costs and increase our overall profitability.

      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. 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. Based on our expansion into the mental health residential treatment services sector, we believe that we are well positioned to continue 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, 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. 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. On March 6, 2006, we were awarded a contract to manage the operations of the 198 bed Campsfield House in Kidlington, United Kingdom. We expect to begin operations under this contract in the second quarter of 2006.

      The following table summarizes certain information with respect to facilities that GEO (or a subsidiary or joint venture of GEO’s) operated under a management contract or had an award to manage as of January 1, 2006:

     The following table sets forth the number of contracts that have terms 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. See “Insurance” below. 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 facilities are often seeking to retain projects that might otherwise be privatized. In the private sector, we compete with a number of companies, including, but not limited to: Corrections Corporation of America; Cornell Companies, Inc.; Management and Training Corporation; and Group 4 Falck Global Solutions Limited. 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 January 1, 2006, we had 8,463 full-time employees. Of such full-time employees, 171 were employed at our headquarters and regional offices and 8,292 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 451 and 962 employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements in the United States and at international offices, respectively. Collective bargaining agreements covering 70% of employees at our international offices were renegotiated in 2005 for new two to three year terms. Two additional international collective bargaining agreements are outstanding and are currently being

      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, interpersonal skills and job training relating to the particular position to be held. Each of our employees who has contact with inmates receives a minimum of 40 hours of additional training each year, and each manager receives at least 24 hours of training each year.

      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 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 fully insured up to an aggregate limit of between

      Our international operations for fiscal years 2005 and 2004 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. Our international operations for fiscal year 2003 consisted of the operations of our wholly owned Australian subsidiary only. See Item 7 for more information on SACM. Financial information about our operations in different geographic regions appears in “Item 8. Financial Statements — Note 17 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 2005, 2004 and 2003:

      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 January 1, 2006 was $225.1 million, excluding non recourse debt of $142.5 million. In addition, as of January 1, 2006, we had $43.7 million outstanding in letters of credit under the revolving loan portion of our Senior Credit Facility. As a result, as of that date, we would have had the ability to borrow an additional approximately $56.3 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.

      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 Senior Credit Facility and the indenture governing our outstanding Notes.

      The terms of the indenture governing the Notes and our 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 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. As of January 1, 2006, we would have had the ability to borrow an additional $56.3 million under the revolving loan portion of our Senior Credit Facility. 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. Any indebtedness incurred pursuant to the universal shelf registration statement will be created through the issuance of these debt securities. Such debt securities may be issued in more than one series and some of those series may have characteristics that provide them with rights that are superior to those of other series of our debt securities that have already been created or that will be created in the future.

      The indenture governing the Notes and our 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, incur additional indebtedness, pay dividends and or distributions on our capital stock, repurchase, redeem or retire our capital stock, prepay subordinated indebtedness, make

      In addition, our 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 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 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 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 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 the Senior Credit Facility. Our estimated total annual interest expense based on borrowings outstanding as of January 1, 2006 is approximately $25.1 million, $4.8 million of which is interest expense attributable to estimated borrowings of $74.8 million currently outstanding under the Senior Credit Facility inclusive of expected mandatory payments under the Senior Credit Facility. Based on estimated borrowings under the Senior Credit Facility, inclusive of expected mandatory payments, a one percent increase in the interest rate applicable to the Senior Credit Facility, will increase interest expense by $0.7 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 will be materially adversely affected. For the fiscal year ended January 1, 2006, our subsidiaries accounted for 24.1% of our consolidated revenues, and, as of January 1, 2006 our subsidiaries accounted for 21.4% 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 January 1, 2006, seven of our facility management contracts are scheduled to expire on or before December 31, 2006. These contracts represented 15.9% of our consolidated revenues for the year ended January 1, 2006. Some of these contracts may not be renewed by the corresponding governmental agency. See “Business — Facilities and Facility Management Contracts.” 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.

      Eleven of our facilities are leased from CentraCore Properties Trust, an independent, publicly-traded REIT which we refer to as CPV. These leases have an initial ten-year term with varying renewal periods at our option, and a total average remaining initial term of 4.0 years. The facility management contracts underlying these leases generally have a term ranging from one to five years, however, they are terminable by the governmental entity at will. In the event that a facility management contract is terminated or expires and is not renewed prior to the expiration of the corresponding lease term for the facility, we will continue to be liable to CPV for the related lease payments. Our 2006 expected obligation for lease payments under the eleven CPV leases is approximately $25.8 million with $114.4 million remaining thereafter. Because these lease payments would not be offset by revenues from an active facility management contract, they could represent a material ongoing loss. If we are unable to find a replacement management contract or an alternative use for the facility, the loss could continue until the expiration of the lease term then in effect, which could adversely affect our profitability.

      During 2000, our management contract at the 276-bed Jena Juvenile Justice Center in Jena, Louisiana was discontinued by the mutual agreement of the parties. Despite the discontinuation of the management contract, we remain responsible for payments on our underlying lease of the inactive facility with CPV through January 2010. During the third quarter 2005, we determined that the alternative uses being pursued were no longer probable and as a result we revised our estimated sublease income and recorded an operating charge of $4.3 million, representing the remaining obligation on the lease through the contractual term of January 2010,

      In addition, we own four properties on which we operate correctional and detention facilities. Our purchase of these properties during 2002 was financed through borrowings under our former senior credit facility which have now been incorporated into our current Senior Credit Facility. If the underlying facility management contract for one or more of these properties terminates, we will continue to be responsible for servicing the indebtedness incurred to purchase those properties. For example, we will be required to continue servicing the indebtedness related to one of these properties, the Michigan Correctional Facility, even though our management contract to operate the facility was terminated in 2005.

      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. The loss of, or a significant decrease in, business could seriously harm our financial condition and results of operations. The loss of, or a significant decrease in, business from the Bureau

      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 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations “Commitments and Contingencies”. 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

      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 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

      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 types of claims, except for claims relating to employment matters. 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 fully insured up to an aggregate limit of between $25.0 million and $50.0 million, depending on the nature of the claim. With respect to claims for which we are insured arising after October 1, 2002, we maintain a general liability policy for all U.S. 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 and automobile liability. Our Australian subsidiary is required to carry tail insurance through 2011 related to a discontinued contract. We also carry various types of insurance with respect to our operations in South Africa and Australia. There can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover 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 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 that are based on actual claim amounts and loss development experience considering historical and industry experience. If actual losses related to insurance claims significantly differ from our estimates, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially impacted.

      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.

      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. For the fiscal year ended January 1, 2006, our international operations accounted for approximately 16.1% of our consolidated revenues.

      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 are 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 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.

      None.

      In April 2003, we relocated our corporate offices to Boca Raton, Florida, under a 10-year lease. 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.

      In June 2004, we received notice of a third-party claim for property damage incurred during 2001 and 2002 at several detention facilities that our Australian subsidiary formerly operated. 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. However, although the insurance provider has not quantified its damage claim and the outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty, based on information known to date, and our 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 we may incur as a result of this claim, including the expenses of defending the claim. We have accrued a reserve related to the claim based on our estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of our legal counsel.

      The nature of our business exposes us to various types of claims or litigation against us, 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 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 January 1, 2006.

      Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “GGI.” 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 2005 and 2004. The prices shown have been rounded to the nearest $1/100. The approximate number of shareholders of record as of March 14, 2006, was 135.

      We did not pay any cash dividends on our common stock for fiscal years 2005 and 2004. 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 $150.0 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 2005. On July 9, 2003 we purchased all 12 million shares of our common stock beneficially owned by Group 4 Falck, our former 57% majority shareholder, for $132.0 million in cash.

      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 January 1, 2006, including our 1994 Stock Option Plan, our 1994 Second Stock Option Plan, our 1999 Stock Option Plan, and our Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan. Our shareholders have approved all of these plans.

      To facilitate the completion of the share purchase from Group 4 Falck, on July 9, 2003, we issued $150.0 million aggregate principal amount ten-year 8¹/4% senior notes, referred to as the Notes, in a private offering to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A of the Securities Act.

      Subsequent to the private offering of the Notes, we filed an S-4 registration statement to register under the Securities Act of 1933 exchange notes, having substantially identical terms as the Notes, which we refer to as the Exchange Notes. The registration statement was declared effective by the SEC on November 10, 2003. We then completed an exchange offer pursuant to the registration statement, in which holders of the Notes exchanged the Notes for the Exchange Notes which are generally freely tradable, subject to certain exceptions. We did not sell any securities that were unregistered under the Securities Act of 1933 in 2004 or 2005.

      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).

      The following discussion and analysis provides information which management believes is relevant to an assessment and understanding of our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. 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 numerous factors including, but not limited to, those described below under “Item 1A. Risk Factors,” and Forward-Looking Statements. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

      On November 4, 2005, we completed the acquisition of Correctional Services Corporation, or CSC, a Florida-based provider of privatized jail, community corrections and alternative sentencing services. The acquisition was completed through the merger of CSC into GEO Acquisition, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GEO, referred to as the Merger. Under the terms of the Merger, we acquired 100% of the 10.2 million outstanding shares of CSC common stock for $6.00 per share, or approximately $62.1 million in cash. As a result of the Merger, we became responsible for supervising the operation of the 16 adult correctional and detention facilities, totaling 8,037 beds, formerly run by CSC. Immediately following the purchase of CSC, we sold Youth Services International, Inc., the former juvenile services division of CSC, for $3.75 million, $1.75 million of which was paid in cash and the remaining $2.0 million of which will be paid in the form of a promissory note accruing interest at a rate of 6% per annum. The financial information included in the discussion below for fiscal year 2005 reflects the operations of CSC from November 4, 2005 through January 1, 2006.

      On September 14, 2005, we amended our senior secured credit facility, referred to as the Senior Credit Facility, to consist of a $75 million, six-year term-loan bearing interest at London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR plus 2.00%, and a $100 million, five-year revolving credit facility bearing interest at LIBOR plus 2.00%. We used the borrowings under the Senior Credit Facility to fund general corporate purposes and to finance the acquisition of CSC for approximately $62 million in cash plus transaction-related costs.

      Through our Australian subsidiary, we previously had a contract with the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, or DIMIA, for the management and operation of Australia’s immigration centers. In 2003, the contract was not renewed, and effective February 29, 2004, we completed the transition of the contract and exited the management and operation of the DIMIA centers. The accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes reflect the operations of DIMIA as a discontinued operation in all periods presented.

      In early 2005, the New Zealand Parliament repealed the law that permitted private prison operation resulting in the termination of our contract for the management and operation of the Auckland Central Remand Prison or Auckland. We have operated this facility since July 2000. We ceased operating the facility upon the expiration of the contract on July 13, 2005. The accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes reflect the operations of Auckland as a discontinued operation.

      On January 1, 2006, the last day of our 2005 fiscal year, we completed the sale of a 72 bed private mental health hospital which we owned and operated since 1997 for approximately $11.5 million. We recognized a gain on the sale of this transaction of approximately $1.6 million. The accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes reflect the operations of the hospital and the related sale as a discontinued operation.

      On July 9, 2003 we purchased all 12 million shares of our common stock beneficially owned by Group 4 Falck, our former 57% majority shareholder, for $132.0 million in cash pursuant to the terms of a share purchase agreement, dated April 30, 2003, by and among us, Group 4 Falck, our former parent company, The Wackenhut Corporation, or TWC, and Tuhnekcaw, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Group 4 Falck. In connection with the share purchase, we internalized several functions previously outsourced to TWC, including payroll processing, human resources management, tax and information systems.

      On July 2, 2003, we sold our one-half interest in Premier Custodial Group Limited, our former United Kingdom joint venture which we refer to as PCG, to Serco for approximately $80.7 million, on a pretax basis.

      In January 2003, the FASB issued FIN No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities,” which addressed consolidation by a business of variable interest entities in which it is the primary beneficiary. In December 2003, the FASB issued FIN No. 46R which replaced FIN No. 46. Our 50% owned South African joint venture in South African Custodial Services Pty. Limited, which we refer to as SACS, is a variable interest entity. We determined that we are not the primary beneficiary of SACS and as a result are not required to consolidate SACS under FIN 46R. We account for SACS as an equity affiliate. SACS was established in 2001, to design, finance and build the Kutama Sinthumule Correctional Center. Subsequently, SACS was awarded a 25 year contract to design, construct, manage and finance a facility in Louis Trichardt, South Africa. SACS, based on the terms of the contract with government, was able to obtain long term financing to build the prison. The financing is fully guaranteed by the government, except in the event of default, for which it provides an 80% guarantee. “See Item 7. Financial Condition — Guarantees” for a discussion of our guarantees related to SACS. Separately, SACS entered into a long term operating contract with South African Custodial Management (Pty) Limited, which we refer to as SACM, to provide security and other management services and with SACS’s joint venture partner to provide purchasing, programs and maintenance services upon completion of the construction phase, which concluded in February 2002. Our maximum exposure for loss under this contract is $24.1 million, which represents our initial investment and the guarantees discussed in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition.

      In February 2004, CSC was awarded a contract by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to develop and operate a 1,020 bed detention complex in Frio County, Texas. South Texas Local Development Corporation, referred to as STLDC, a non profit corporation, was created and issued $49.5 million in taxable revenue bonds to finance the construction of the detention complex. Additionally, CSC provided a $5 million subordinated note to STLDC for initial development costs. We determined that we are the primary beneficiary of STLDC and consolidate the entity as a result. STLDC is the owner of the complex and entered into a development agreement with CSC to oversee the development of the complex. In addition, STLDC entered into an operating agreement providing CSC the sole and exclusive right to operate and manage the complex. The operating agreement and bond indenture require that the revenue from CSC’s contract with ICE be used to fund the periodic debt service requirements as they become due. The net revenues, if any, after various expenses such as trustee fees, property taxes and insurance premiums, are distributed to CSC to cover CSC’s operating expenses and management fee. CSC is responsible for the entire operations of the facility including all operating expenses and is required to pay all operating expenses whether or not there are sufficient revenues. STLDC has no liabilities resulting from its ownership. The bonds have a ten year term and are non-recourse to CSC and STLDC. The bonds are fully insured and the sole source of payment for the bonds is the operating revenues of the center.

      On January 28, 2004, our universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which we refer to as the SEC. The universal shelf registration statement

      On October 9, 2003, we entered into a rights agreement with EquiServe Trust Company, N.A., as rights agent. Under the terms of the rights agreement, each share of our common stock carries with it one preferred share purchase right. If the rights become exercisable pursuant to the rights agreement, each right entitles the registered holder to purchase from us one one-thousandth of a share of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock at a fixed price, subject to adjustment. Until a right is exercised, the holder of the right has no right to vote or receive dividends or any other rights as a shareholder as a result of holding the right. The rights trade automatically with shares of our common stock, and may only be exercised in connection with certain attempts to acquire our company. The rights are designed to protect the interests of our company and our shareholders against coercive acquisition tactics and encourage potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors before attempting an acquisition. The rights may, but are not intended to, deter acquisition proposals that may be in the interests of our shareholders.

      We believe that the accounting policies described below are critical to understanding our business, results of operations and financial condition because they involve the more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements. We have discussed the development, selection and application of our critical accounting policies with the audit committee of our board of directors, and our audit committee has reviewed our disclosure relating to our critical accounting policies in this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

      Our 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 revenues and expenses during the reporting period. We routinely evaluate our estimates based on historical experience and on various other assumptions that our management believes are reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. If actual results significantly differ from our estimates, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially impacted.

      Other significant accounting policies, primarily those with lower levels of uncertainty than those discussed below, are also critical to understanding our consolidated financial statements. The notes to our consolidated financial statements contain additional information related to our accounting policies and should be read in conjunction with this discussion.

      We recognize revenue in accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin, or SAB, No. 101, “Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements”, as amended by SAB No. 104, “Revenue Recognition”, and related interpretations. Facility management revenues are recognized as services are provided under facility management contracts with approved government appropriations based on a net rate per day per inmate or on a fixed monthly rate.

      Project development and design revenues are recognized as earned on a percentage of completion basis measured by the percentage of costs incurred to date as compared to estimated total cost for each contract. This method is used because we consider costs incurred to date to be the best available measure of progress on these contracts. Provisions for estimated losses on uncompleted contracts and changes to cost estimates are made in the period in which we determine that such losses and changes are probable. Typically, we enter into fixed price contracts and do not perform additional work unless approved change orders are in place. Costs attributable to unapproved change orders are expensed in the period in which the costs are incurred if we believe that it is not probable that the costs will be recovered through a change in the contract price. If we believe that it is probable that the costs will be recovered through a change in the contract price, costs related to unapproved change orders are expensed in the period in which they are incurred, and contract revenue is recognized to the extent of the cost incurred. Revenue in excess of the costs attributable to unapproved change orders is not recognized until the change order is approved. Contract costs include all direct material and labor costs and those indirect costs related to contract performance. Changes in job performance, job conditions, and estimated profitability, including those arising from contract penalty provisions, and final contract settlements, may result in revisions to estimated costs and income, and are recognized in the period in which the revisions are determined.

      We extend credit to the governmental agencies we contract with and other parties in the normal course of business as a result of billing and receiving payment for services thirty to sixty days in arrears. Further, we regularly review outstanding receivables, and provide estimated losses through an allowance for doubtful accounts. In evaluating the level of established loss reserves, we make judgments regarding our customers’ ability to make required payments, economic events and other factors. As the financial condition of these parties change, circumstances develop or additional information becomes available, adjustments to the allowance for doubtful accounts may be required. We also perform ongoing credit evaluations of our customers’ financial condition and generally do not require collateral. We maintain reserves for potential credit losses, and such losses traditionally have been within our expectations.

      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 fully insured up to an aggregate limit of between $25.0 million and $50.0 million, depending on the nature of the claim. With respect to claims for which we are insured arising after October 1, 2002, we maintain a general liability policy for all U.S. 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 and automobile liability. Our Australian subsidiary is required to carry tail insurance through 2011 related to a discontinued contract. We also carry various types of insurance with respect to our operations in South Africa and Australia. There can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover 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 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 considering historical and industry experience. If actual losses related to insurance claims significantly differ from our estimates, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially impacted.

      We account for income taxes in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards, or FAS, No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” Under this method, deferred income taxes are determined based on the estimated future tax effects of differences between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities given the provisions of enacted tax laws. Deferred income tax provisions and benefits are based on changes to

      In providing for deferred taxes, we consider tax regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate, and estimates of future taxable income and available tax planning strategies. If tax regulations, operating results or the ability to implement tax-planning strategies vary, adjustments to the carrying value of deferred tax assets and liabilities may be required.

      The provision for income taxes for the fiscal year 2005 reflects a benefit of $1.7 million in the second quarter of 2005 related to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, or the AJCA. A key provision of the AJCA creates a temporary incentive for U.S. corporations to repatriate undistributed income earned abroad by providing an 85 percent dividends received deduction for certain dividends from controlled foreign corporations. Additionally, 2005 reflects a benefit of $6.5 million in the fourth quarter related to a step up in basis for an asset in Australia.

      As of January 1, 2006, we had approximately $282.2 million in long-lived property and equipment. Property and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets. Buildings and improvements are depreciated over 2 to 40 years. Equipment and furniture and fixtures are depreciated over 3 to 7 years. Accelerated methods of depreciation are generally used for income tax purposes. Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of the useful life of the improvement or the term of the lease. We perform ongoing evaluations of the estimated useful lives of our property and equipment for depreciation purposes. The estimated useful lives are determined and continually evaluated based on the period over which services are expected to be rendered by the asset. Maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred.

      We review long-lived assets to be held and used for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of such assets may not be fully recoverable in accordance with FAS No. 144 “Accounting for the Impairment of Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”. Determination of recoverability is based on an estimate of undiscounted future cash flows resulting from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. Measurement of an impairment loss for long-lived assets that management expects to hold and use is based on the fair value of the asset. Long-lived assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less costs to sell. Management has reviewed our long-lived assets and determined that there are no events requiring impairment loss recognition for the period ended January 1, 2006, other than the Michigan Facility charge. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations “Commitments and Contingencies.” Events that would trigger an impairment assessment include deterioration of profits for a business segment that has long-lived assets, or when other changes occur which might impair recovery of long-lived assets.

      We have entered into ten year non cancelable operating leases with CentraCore Properties Trust, or CPV, for eleven facilities with initial terms that expire at various times beginning in April 2008 and extending through 2016. In the event that our facility management contract for any of these leased facilities is terminated, we would remain responsible for payments to CPV on the underlying lease. We will account for idle periods under any such lease in accordance with FAS No. 146 “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities.” Specifically, we will review our estimate for sublease income and record a charge for the difference between the net present value of the sublease income and the lease expense over the remaining term of the lease.

      The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the notes to the consolidated financial statements accompanying this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in

      As further discussed above, the discussion of our results of operations below excludes the results of our discontinued operations resulting from the termination of our management contract with DIMIA, Auckland, and Atlantic Shores Hospital for all periods presented.

      For the purposes of the discussion below, “2005” means the 52 week fiscal year ended January 1, 2006, “2004” means the 53 week fiscal year ended January 2, 2005, and “2003” means the 52 week fiscal year ended December 28, 2003.

      GEO had diluted earnings per share of $0.70, $1.73 and $2.53 in 2005, 2004, and 2003 respectively. For fiscal year 2005, the $0.70 amount included ($1.54) per diluted share for certain items, as detailed below, compared to the fiscal year 2004 $1.73 amount, which included ($0.03) per diluted share for certain items detailed below. The fiscal year 2003 $2.53 amount included $1.58 per diluted share for certain items detailed below. Weighted average common shares outstanding for fiscal year 2004 reflects a full year of the effect of our purchase of 12 million shares of our common stock in the third quarter 2003.

      The following table sets forth certain items before tax which we consider relevant to the discussion below of our operating results for 2005, 2004 and 2003:

      The following table delineates where the total of certain items above are classified in our Consolidated Statements of Income.

      The increase in revenues in 2005 compared to 2004 is primarily attributable to five items: (i) Australian and South African revenues increased approximately $7.8 million, $2.6 million and $0.2 million of which was due to the strengthening of the Australian dollar and South African Rand, respectively, and $5.0 million of which was due to higher occupancy rates and contractual adjustments for inflation; (ii) the acquisition of CSC increased revenues $17.3 million; (iii) the McFarland facility was idle for all of 2004 and was re-opened in January 2005 resulting in an increase in revenues of approximately $3.1 million; (iv) domestic revenues also increased due to contractual adjustments for inflation, slightly higher occupancy rates and improved terms negotiated into a number of contracts. These increases offset a decrease in revenues due to the transition of the Queens contract from ICE to USMS, the closure of the Michigan Correctional Facility on October 14, 2005, the expiration of our operating contract for the Kyle Facility on August 31, 2005, and lower populations in our Val Verde, and San Diego Facilities; and (v) revenues decreased in 2005 because it contained 52 weeks compared to 2004, which contained 53 weeks.

      The number of compensated resident days in domestic facilities increased to 10.7 million in 2005 from 10.5 million in 2004. Compensated resident days in Australian and South African facilities remained constant at 2.0 million during 2005 and 2004. We look at the average occupancy in our facilities to determine how we are managing our available beds. The average occupancy is calculated by taking compensated mandays as a percentage of capacity. The average occupancy in our domestic, Australian and South African facilities combined was 97.5% of capacity in 2005 compared to 99.3% in 2004. The decrease in the average occupancy is due to an increase in the number of beds made available to us under our contracts and lower populations in our Val Verde and San Diego facilities.

      Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the operation and management of our correctional, detention and mental health facilities. Operating expenses for fiscal year 2005 reflect an impairment charge of $20.9 million for the Michigan Correctional Facility. We own the 480-bed Michigan Correctional Facility and operated the facility from 1999 until October 2005 pursuant to a management contract with the Michigan Department of Corrections, or the MDOC. Separately, we leased the facility, as lessor, to the State, as lessee, under a lease with an initial term of 20 years followed by two 5-year options. On September 30, 2005, the Governor of the State of Michigan announced her decision to close the facility. As a result of the closure, our management contract with the MDOC was terminated. On October 3, 2005, the Michigan Department of Management & Budget provided a 60 day lease cancellation notice to us. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations “Commitments and Contingencies” for further discussion relating to our Michigan Correctional Facility. Additionally, 2005 operating expenses reflect an operating charge on the Jena lease of $4.3 million, representing the remaining obligation on the lease through the contractual term of January 2010.

      Operating expenses in 2005 were favorably impacted by a $3.4 million reduction in our reserves for general liability, auto liability, and workers compensation insurance. This favorable reduction was largely offset by higher than anticipated U.S. employee health insurance costs of approximately $1.7 million, transition expenses of approximately $0.8 million associated with our Queens New York Facility, start-up expenses at certain domestic facilities of approximately $0.6 million and adjustments of approximately $0.4 million to insurance reserves in our Australian operations.

      The $3.4 million reduction in insurance reserves was the result of revised actuarial projections related to loss estimates for the initial three years of our insurance program which was established on October 2, 2002. Prior to October 2, 2002, our insurance coverage was provided through an insurance program established by TWC, our former parent company. We experienced significant adverse claims development in general liability and workers’ compensation in the late 1990’s. Beginning in approximately 1999, we made significant operational changes and began to aggressively manage our risk in a proactive manner. These changes have resulted in improved claims experience and loss development, which we are realizing in our actuarial projections. As a result of improving loss trends, our independent actuary reduced its expected losses for claims arising since October 2, 2002. We adjusted our reserves in the third quarter of 2005 to reflect the actuary’s improved expected loss projections. There can be no assurance that our improved claims experience and loss developments will continue. Similarly, 2004 operating expenses reflect a $4.2 million reduction in insurance reserves also attributable to improved actuarial loss projections.

      During 2005, we experienced adverse development in our employee health program. Since we are self-insured for employee healthcare, this adverse development resulted in additional claims expense and increased reserve requirements. During the third quarter of 2005, we completed a review of our employee health program and made adjustments to the plan to reduce future costs. The revised plan was effective November 1, 2005. There can be no assurance that these modifications will improve our claims experience.

      Operating expenses in 2004 reflect an additional provision for operating losses of approximately $3.0 million related to our inactive facility in Jena, Louisiana.

      The remaining increase in operating expenses is consistent with and proportional to the increase in revenues discussed above as a result of the CSC acquisition, the start-up of new facilities and the expansion of existing facilities.

      Other primarily consists of revenues and related operating expenses associated with our mental health and construction businesses. The decrease in 2005 primarily relates to approximately $7.2 less construction revenue as compared to 2004. The construction revenue is related to our expansion of the South Bay Facility, one of the facilities that we manage. The expansion was completed at the end of the second quarter of 2005.

      General and administrative expenses consist primarily of corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees and other administrative expenses. The increase in expense reflects increased personnel and business development costs associated with the expansion of our mental health business. The increase also reflects costs associated with compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements for management’s assessment over internal controls, which resulted in an increase in professional fees in 2005 of $0.9 million. The remaining increase in general and administrative costs relates to other increases in professional fees, travel, expenses associated with our acquisition program and rent expense for our corporate offices.

Interest Income and Interest Expense

      The decrease in interest income is primarily due to lower average invested cash balances. Interest income for 2005 and 2004 reflects income from interest rate swap agreements entered into September 2003 for our domestic operations, which increased interest income. The interest rate swap agreements in the aggregate notional amounts of $50.0 million are hedges against the change in the fair value of a designated portion of the Notes due to changes in the underlying interest rates. The interest rate swap agreements have payment and expiration dates and call provisions that coincide with the terms of the Notes.

      The increase in interest expense is primarily attributable to the refinancing of the term loan portion of our Senior Credit Facility.

      Deferred financing fees of $1.4 million were written off in 2005 in connection with the refinancing of the term loan portion of the Senior Credit Facility. In 2004, $0.3 million was written off in 2004 in connection with the $43.0 million payment related to the term loan portion of the Senior Credit Facility.

      Income taxes for 2005 reflect a benefit as a result of the loss before income taxes which primarily resulted from the $20.9 million impairment charge for the Michigan Facility and the $4.3 million charge to record the remaining lease obligation for the Jena lease with CPV.

      The income tax benefit for 2005 reflects a benefit of $6.5 million in the fourth quarter 2005 related to a step up in tax basis for an asset in Australia which resulted in a decreased deferred tax liability.

      The income tax benefit for 2005 also reflects a benefit of $1.7 million in the second quarter 2005 related to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, or the AJCA. A key provision of the AJCA creates a temporary incentive for U.S. corporations to repatriate undistributed income earned abroad by providing an 85 percent dividends received deduction for certain dividends from controlled foreign corporations.

      Equity in earnings of affiliate in 2005 reflects a one time tax benefit of $2.1 million related to a change in South African tax law.