Access

BUYING

AUGUST 2015

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at
Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2
Introduction .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 4
SEC TION 1

Corrections Companies Provide Low-Quality Services at High Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SEC TION 2

Corrections Companies Spend Millions to Access Professional Corrections Associations  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
Conference Sponsorships  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13
Conference Program Advertisements .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15
Conference Vendor Fees .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15
General Support Contributions  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16
Scholarships and Awards .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16
SEC TION 3

How Corrections Companies Influence Decision Makers in Professional Corrections Associations .  .  . 17
Corrections Companies Build Relationships with Key Officials .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 17
Corrections Companies Lead Conference Workshops .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18
Corrections Companies Promote their Brands .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19
Corrections Companies Generate Leads at Vendor Booths .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 23
SEC TION 4

Conclusion .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24
Notes  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 25

1

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Executive Summary
Private corrections companies, which contract with corrections departments and facilities to
oversee and provide services to incarcerated people, make up a multibillion-dollar industry.
Every year, they devote resources to building influence with decision makers in order to find and capitalize on new
business opportunities. One key avenue of influence is through professional corrections associations, which are non-profit
organizations that support corrections officials, including wardens, administrators, state Department of Corrections staff,
sheriffs, and others through events, trainings, and public policy advocacy.
This report first details how companies spend millions of dollars sponsoring conferences, paying vendor fees, and
providing other funding to gain access to the professional corrections associations. This report then shows how corrections
companies leverage this access in ways that can influence decision makers and benefit the companies’ bottom lines.
Considering corrections companies’ track records of providing low-quality services that harm prisoners, communities, and
taxpayers, the influence they exert through professional corrections associations is cause for concern.
The research in this report is based on limited information that professional corrections associations make publicly
available. Consequently, the report’s findings constitute only a portion of the total contributions made by companies and
the subsequent opportunities they receive to influence decision makers.
Private companies make contributions to professional corrections associations. In 2014, sponsors, vendors, corporate
partners, and other non-individual entities contributed at least $3 million to five of the largest professional corrections
associations, including the American Correctional Association, the American Jail Association, the Association of State
Correctional Administrators, the Corrections Technology Association, and the National Sheriffs’ Association.
In return, corrections contractors are able to build relationships with and influence decision makers in key ways:

•	 Corrections companies send executives and staff to professional corrections association conferences to
meet decision makers. Many companies receive lists of attendees, allowing the corporate staff to target certain
corrections officials.

•	 Corrections companies lead trainings and workshops at conferences. Often times, companies will directly
market goods and services.

•	 Corrections companies host conference events where their executives and marketing staff meet with and
give speeches to corrections officials.

•	 Corrections companies market their products and services at conference vendor booths to identify
potential government customers and generate leads.

•	 Corrections companies advertise on conference materials, such as the program books, hotel room key cards,
tote bags, and take-home mugs. This marketing encourages officials to consider the companies’ products and
services when making purchasing and outsourcing decisions.

2

BUYING ACCESS 	

3

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

A Case Study of the Corrections Technology Association

C

ompanies that make contributions to professional corrections associations benefit from opportunities to influence
decision makers who attend association conferences. Corporate sponsors’ involvement in the Corrections
Technology Association’s (CTA) conference in 2014 provides an illustration of how this works. In total, 35 companies from
telephone, banking, commissary, software and other sectors sponsored CTA’s conference. Each sponsor paid between
$3,000 and $7,500, contributing a total of $150,000, which was likely a large portion of CTA’s total annual revenue.
(In 2013, the most recent year for which CTA’s tax filings are available, sponsors contributed $126,000 to the annual
conference, equivalent to 71% of CTA’s revenue for that year.)
As sponsors, these companies received opportunities to influence the decision makers in attendance:

•	 Each sponsor had the opportunity to send at least two company representatives to meet and build
relationships with the attendees. Sponsors that contributed $7,500 could send five representatives.

•	 Each corporate sponsor also had the opportunity to lead a 50-minute workshop. JPay, for example, held a
workshop to promote the company’s video messaging service. In total, 17 of the 24 workshops were led by
corporate sponsors.

•	 Each corporate sponsor also received advertisement space in the conference’s program book. The 36-page
program book contained 35 corporate advertisements.

•	 CTA gave sponsors lists of attendees, allowing the companies to target certain decision makers during the
conference or follow up after the conference.

•	 All sponsors received logo and name publicity on the conference materials and website to build their
brand recognition.
These benefits have the combined effect of encouraging decision makers in attendance to use the corporate sponsors’
services whether or not the officials were initially planning to outsource.

BUYING ACCESS 	

4

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Introduction
In the 1980s and 1990s, federal and state governments adopted a series of “tough on crime”
policies that arrested an increased number of Americans, and imprisoned them for longer periods of time.1 Consequently,
from 1978 to 2008, the proportion of people incarcerated in the United States grew nearly fourfold, from 131 to 506 for
every 100,000 people.2
The growing number of incarcerated people spurred the creation of the for-profit corrections industry. In 1980, the private
corrections industry was nonexistent, but by 2013, corrections companies were managing the incarceration of 133,000
people, equivalent to 8 percent of the total prison population.3 (See Figure 1.) Concurrently, corrections companies that
work in industries such as health care, telecommunications, and prisoner banking grew to provide an increased number
of services to correctional facilities. JPay, for example, which was founded in 2002, now provides money transfer services
to 1.7 million inmates, or nearly 70 percent of all people incarcerated.4
Figure 1: The Private Prison Industry Is Growing5

For years, private corrections companies
have been working behind the scenes to
influence decision makers and expand
their bottom lines. Corrections companies
contribute to campaigns, lobby, and —
as this report explores — build
relationships with officials through
professional corrections associations.6
Today, decision makers and citizens are
repealing “three strikes” rules, mandatory
minimum sentencing, and other proincarceration policies.7 Legislators and
citizen initiatives are introducing new
policies that reduce prison populations
and recidivism, as well as improve
prisoner rehabilitation programs and cut
corrections costs. As a result, corrections
departments and courts are sending
fewer people to prison while increasingly
utilizing probation programs, residential
re-entry centers (or “halfway houses”),
and rehabilitation facilities.8

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

The Benefits of Professional Corrections Associations

W

hile this report warns against private companies influencing decision makers through professional corrections
associations, companies’ involvement in the associations can produce some benefits for government officials.

The high number of corrections companies at professional corrections association conferences (sometimes as many as
300) provides decision makers with a one-stop location to learn about new products, technologies, and programs.10
For corrections officials looking to purchase goods and services, meeting several vendors at one place can save time
and money. In addition, the presence of many companies that compete with each other can drive up the quality and
drive down the price.
For these reasons, professional corrections associations actively recruit companies to attend conferences. According to
the American Correctional Association’s (ACA) exhibitor prospectus, “This is a great opportunity to meet face-to-face
with thousands of decision makers who have the need and budgets for your products, services, and technologies.”11
According to the Corrections Technology Association’s (CTA) exhibitor prospectus, “The focused makeup of attendees
offers [company sponsors] an unparalleled opportunity to showcase their products and services, and to form lasting
relationships with potential customers.”12

Private corrections companies are using their influence to ensure that, even with these changes in criminal justice policies,
they continue to grow their businesses. At professional corrections association conferences, companies seek to sell their
services to corrections officials even as lower incarcerated populations reduce demand. Simultaneously, companies that
have expanded into community corrections (e.g. CCA purchased Correctional Alternatives, Inc., a residential re-entry
company, in 2013) seek to sell their new services to meet America’s changing criminal justice policies.9
This report begins to examine the influence cultivated by corrections companies at professional corrections associations
and how this influence can lead officials to continue to use companies’ services even with changes in criminal justice policy.
The first section of this report profiles corrections companies that participate in professional corrections associations and
highlights their track records of providing subpar service, often at high costs. The second section discusses how corrections
companies spend millions through sponsorships, vendor fees, and other contributions to gain access to professional
corrections associations. The third section shows how corrections companies use their access to these associations in ways
that can influence corrections decision makers. The fourth section makes the case for transparency that allows the public to
fully understand corrections companies’ involvement in professional corrections associations.
It is important to note that currently, professional corrections associations do not publish reports that provide an account of
their relationships with the companies. As a result, this report is not a comprehensive review of the contributions made by
private companies to the associations and the benefits the companies receive in return. Rather, this report is a “playbook”
that highlights the methods companies commonly use to influence decision makers through the associations.

5

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Public Disclosure Laws Do Not Cover Activities at Professional Corrections Associations

P

rivate prison companies use three avenues to influence governments’ decisions: (1) campaign contributions,
(2) lobbying, and (3) relationships and associations.13

Public disclosure laws empower the public to monitor the influence of private corrections companies through the first
two avenues: campaign contributions and lobbying. Contributors to candidates and political action committees must
file campaign finance reports, which are publicly available. Advocates who work with officials on legislation must
register as lobbyists, the records of which are public.
For example, public records show that between 2013 and 2014, the corrections industry contributed $4.7 million to
candidates and committees, the largest contributors being GEO Group and CCA.14 In 2013, CCA had 102 lobbyists
working in 26 states and GEO Group 46 lobbyists in 12 states.15
While disclosure laws for campaign contributions and lobbying are far from perfect, they allow the public to uncover
instances of preferential treatment, corruption, and deals that pad a company’s bottom line but hurt the public interest.
However, disclosure rules do not cover the third avenue of influence: relationships and associations. Because
professional corrections associations are private, non-profit organizations, details about corrections companies’
involvement with these entities are exempt from public review. This report begins to pull back the curtain on this
third avenue of influence and shine light on the many undisclosed ways corporations influence decision makers who
are members of professional corrections associations. It is important to note, however, that the findings are based
on documents and sources that companies and professional corrections associations have made public, such as
conference program manuals and prospectus brochures for sponsors. The limited scope of the publicly available
information suggests that the data and examples in this report constitute only a portion of the actual involvement
of corporations in professional corrections associations.

6

BUYING ACCESS 	

7

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

S E C T ION 1

Corrections Companies Provide Low-Quality Services at High Costs
Private corrections companies, which contract with corrections departments and facilities to oversee
and provide services to incarcerated people, make up a multibillion-dollar industry.16 To increase profits, many of these
companies cut corners on service quality, which creates poor living conditions inside the facilities, leads to higher rates of
recidivism, and endangers surrounding communities. Below are descriptions of some companies, arranged by industry,
that commonly sponsor conferences. Each company listed sponsored at least two of the conferences for the professional
corrections associations in Figure 2. (See page 14.) The companies below are not a complete list of all corrections companies
involved in professional corrections associations.

Facility Operators
•	 Corrections Corporation of America (CCA): Operates 61 corrections facilities including prisons,
jails, detention centers, and residential re-entry centers in 20 states.17
I N D U S T RY
LEADERS

•	 GEO Group: Operates 66 corrections facilities, 65 day reporting centers, and dozens of re-entry
and intervention centers. The company’s U.S. corrections facilities hold 73,000 beds.18

•	 Management and Training Corporation (MTC): Manages private corrections facilities and
teaches academic, vocational, and life-skills courses to prisoners. MTC houses 29,000 incarcerated
people at 25 facilities in eight states.19
Correctional facility operators have a history of neglecting prisoners’ basic needs and failing to create an environment
conducive for rehabilitation. For example, at a detention center in southern Texas, MTC continually held new prisoners
in solitary confinement because the facility did not have enough beds in the housing units, according to a report by the
American Civil Liberties Union.20 At a prison in Idaho, CCA falsified records that hid at least 4,800 hours of uncovered shifts
during seven months in 2012.21 A lawsuit filed in 2012 on behalf of Idaho Correctional Center’s prisoners contends that, in
order to save money by hiring fewer corrections officers, CCA relinquished control of the facility to prison gangs, leading to
violence and serious prisoner injuries.22
Government and academic studies have quantified private prison operators’ shortcomings. The Bureau of Justice Assistance
concluded that private corrections facilities experience 49% more assaults on staff and 65% more inmate-to-inmate assaults
than public facilities.23 An analysis by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found that people in private prisons had a
higher risk of recidivism than people in public prisons.24 There is also a significant disparity in the amount of training that
private and public sector correctional officers complete. A study by researchers at the University of South Alabama and the
University of Tennessee found that private sector correctional officers undergo 174 hours of pre-service training, compared
to public sector officers who undergo 232 hours of training.25 Additionally, research shows that governments that outsource
prison operations do not save money from the privatization deals.26

BUYING ACCESS 	

8

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

CCA, GEO Group, and MTC also have histories of adding provisions to contracts that pad their bottom lines but undermine
the public interest. Occupancy guarantees, which compel states and local governments to pay corrections companies for
unused beds, can be especially detrimental, causing financial harm, leading to unsafe prison conditions, and tying the
hands of lawmakers and correctional agencies.27

Food Service
I N D U S T RY
LEADER

•	 Aramark: Serves 380 million meals to state and municipal facilities across North America.28

Aramark has a history of poor food quality and worker violations. The company was recently cited for food shortages
and serving food contaminated with maggots, and hundreds of workers have been banned for misconduct, including
inappropriate and sexual relationships with prisoners, trafficking contraband such as cocaine and heroin, and security
violations.29

Health Care
•	 Armor Correctional Health Services: Provides health care at jails and prisons in Florida, Georgia,
Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin. Armor currently oversees the
care of 40,000 incarcerated people.30

•	 Corizon Health: Provides health care at 531 corrections facilities in 27 states. It currently oversees
I N D U S T RY
LEADERS

the care of nearly 345,000 inmates.31

•	 MHM Services: Provides mental health services for 280,000 prisoners and patients at state
hospitals and penitentiaries.32

•	 NaphCare, Inc.: Provides health care and manages electronic health care records for 50
government clients. Naphcare covers 75,000 prisoners and patients.33

•	 Wexford Health Sources Inc.: Administers medical, psychiatric, and other health care services,
both in-person and through tele-medicine, to offenders. Wexford currently holds contracts with
175 institutions and covers 112,000 prisoners and patients.34
Many correctional health care companies have track records of prisoner abuse and undertreating severe maladies.35 For
example, between 2008 and 2013, Corizon was sued for malpractice 660 times.36 In Florida, recent government audits of the
company have shown serious shortcomings in health care provision and nursing.37 In one court case, the jury found Corizon
negligent for $1.2 million in damages after the company ignored the signs of a spinal abscess and administered improper
treatment for the symptoms, which included Tylenol for no leg reflexes and K-Y Jelly for a prolapsed rectum.38
Similarly, from 2008 through 2012, Wexford received 1,092 malpractice claims.39 In one recent lawsuit, a prisoner gave birth
to a stillborn after Wexford provided negligent health care while she was in solitary confinement. Wexford denied her a
doctor when its medical staff did not find a fetal heartbeat and continually gave her Tylenol for intense pain. In addition,
corrections officers deactivated the prisoner’s emergency call button.40

BUYING ACCESS 	

9

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Telecommunications
•	 Global Tel*Link (GTL): Controls 50% of the call service market for correctional facilities with
contracts that cover 1.1 million inmates in 2,100 local, state, and federal facilities.41
I N D U S T RY
LEADERS

•	 Securus Technologies: Operates phone, video call, and email services for incarcerated people
at 2,200 facilities in the U.S. and Canada.42

•	 Telmate: Offers a range of telecommunication information technology services, such as phone,
video call, and photo sharing, to incarcerated people at over 240 facilities across the U.S.
and Canada.43
Telecommunication corrections companies often charge incarcerated people extortionate rates and fees to call their
family and friends. Fees vary between states and companies, but according to a 2012 study by the Prison Policy Initiative,
a 15-minute call through GTL in Georgia would cost a prisoner $17.44 In August 2013, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) found prison phone companies’ rates for interstate long-distance to be “exorbitant” and subsequently set
cost ceilings.45
The high costs have two negative consequences. First, since prisoners’ loved ones often pay for the calls, these fees can
strain already-tight family budgets. Second, the high fees cause prisoners to communicate less and lose touch with their
connections to the outside world. Prisoners’ ongoing correspondence with their families has proven to be a key factor in
lowering rates of recidivism.46
Some companies with video call contracts attempt to ban in-person visitation and then charge high rates to use their video
software. At a jail in southern Wisconsin that no longer allows in-person visitation, Telmate charges $7.50 for a 30-minute
video call from the jail’s visitation room and $19.80 from a home computer.47 According to the Prison Policy Initiative, up
until May 2015, Securus Technology’s standard contracts required the jail or prison to eliminate in-person visits. Roughly
three-quarters of county jails with video visitation have ended in-person visits.48

Prisoner Financial Services
I N D U S T RY
LEADER

•	 JPay: Currently provides money transfer services to 1.7 million incarcerated people in 32 states,
nearly 70% of all prisoners.49

In many correctional facilities, incarcerated people are responsible for paying for their basic needs, such as medical care,
clothes, food, electricity, and toiletries. Since incarcerated people can earn as little as 12 cents per hour, families often send
them money to cover their costs.50 Prisoner financial service companies act as middlemen between the incarcerated person
and the family, many charging exorbitant fees on the money transferred to prisoners’ accounts. The fees charged by JPay
can approach 45%.51
These high fees burden families with costs that can strain the budgets of people who are often already poor and limit the
funds they have to regularly visit or call the person incarcerated, which in turn can lead to higher rates of recidivism.52
Some correctional facilities also contract with financial companies to place prisoners’ account balances on prepaid debit
cards when the prisoners are released. The debit cards include the funds wired to prisoners by their families as well as
leftover wages from prisoners’ jobs. JPay supplies cards to released prisoners in at least 11 states and adds on fees that far
exceed normal prepaid card fees.53 The fees diminish the money on which previously incarcerated people rely to restart
their lives. In Michigan, for example, JPay charges $2.00 for withdrawals, 70 cents for purchases, 50 cents to view the card’s
balance, 50 cents per month in automatic fees, $2.99 every two months for no activity, and $9.95 for cancelling the card. 54

BUYING ACCESS 	

10

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Residential Re-Entry Centers
•	 Community Education Centers (CEC): manages residential re-entry centers (also known as
INDUSTRY
LEADER

halfway houses) and provides social services for parolees, such as job trainings, job placement,
and drug treatment programs. According to a 2012 industry report, CEC’s facilities have a capacity
of over 17,000 people.55

CEC’s residential re-entry centers have a history of violence, drug abuse, and escapes. Some of the escapees have
committed violent crimes while away from the facility.56 In December 2010, California inspectors uncovered a series of
problems at a CEC facility in Long Beach, where residents would climb the compound’s fences at night to buy drugs. Facility
staff were both underqualified and poorly trained.57
The company’s pursuit of revenues has harmed prisoners’ and patients’ rehabilitation and care. According to the Long Beach
facility director, CEC officials discouraged evicting residents who failed drug tests because “they had a hard time keeping
the beds full.”58 CEC’s operations director in California agreed, stating, “I felt the pressure was more to populate it and make
a profit.”59 CEC also secured the Long Beach contract by bidding so low that, in order to meet the contract’s requirements for
resident care, case managers would theoretically need to work 300 hours per week, according to a health care non-profit
that reviewed CEC’s proposed budget.60

Corrections Companies Expand Across Multiple Sectors

S

ome corrections companies provide services across industries. These companies have much to gain from building
influence at professional corrections associations because they can win multiple contracts from the same prison,
jail, or detention center.61
Companies that provide services across multiple industries include:

•	 Aramark: Provides both food (i.e. meal) and commissary services.62
•	 CCA: Manages corrections facilities and purchased Correctional Alternatives, Inc. in 2013 to expand into
the residential re-entry center market.63

•	 Geo Group: Manages corrections facilities and residential re-entry centers.64 GEO Group also provides
electronic monitoring services (e.g. ankle bracelet trackers for parolees and immigrants) through its
subsidiary BI Inc.65

•	 Jpay: Provides money transfer services between incarcerated people and their families, as well as email
and video message services.66

•	 Keefe Group: Sells commissary products, provides money transfer services between families and
prisoners’ accounts, and operates phone services for prisoners..67

•	 Telmate: Manages prisoner phone services as well as money transfer services.68

BUYING ACCESS 	

11

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Commissary Services
•	 Keefe Group: Sells food, clothing, toiletries, and electronics to prisoners.69 It contracts with 800
prisons and ships more than 25 million pounds of goods and supplies each month.70
I N D U S T RY
LEADERS

•	 Union Supply Group: Sells similar commissary products to prisoners. Its subsidiary, Union
Supply Direct, which operates in 18 states, allows corrections facilities to control the items sent to
prisoners by limiting the products available to certain bundled packages.71

Commissary companies sell products to incarcerated people through prison and jail canteens. Many commissary products,
including snacks, games, MP3 players, and televisions, provide prisoners with amenities available in the outside world.
However, since prisoners are responsible for providing for many of their own basic needs, commissary companies also
supply essential goods such as toilet paper, tampons, underwear, and warm clothes.
At times, commissary companies have charged high prices for canteen supplies, which puts essential goods outside the
budgets of many prisoners. When Keefe Group renewed its contract with the Florida Department of Corrections in 2009,
its price increases sparked outcries and complaints from prisoners and their families.72
One reason for the high prices is the for-profit nature of commissary companies. In 2012 Keefe Commissary Network and
two other subsidiaries of Keefe Group netted $41 million in income from $375 million in sales.73
Commissary companies also kick back a portion of the revenue to the corrections facility, which in Florida is deposited
into the General Revenue Fund to finance state operations outside the prison.74 Commissary companies that also manage
prisoners’ bank accounts (see text box titled “Corrections Companies Expand Across Multiple Sectors” on page 10) charge
families when they wire money to the person behind bars.75

BUYING ACCESS 	

12

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

S E C T ION 2

Corrections Companies Spend Millions to Access
Professional Corrections Associations
Professional corrections associations are non-profit organizations that support corrections
officials, including wardens, administrators, state Department of Corrections staff, sheriffs, and others, through events,
trainings, and public policy advocacy.
Professional corrections associations, through annual conferences and other forums, teach decision makers about cuttingedge practices and how to implement new programs and policies in their correctional facilities. These associations also
provide opportunities for decision makers to meet executives and marketing staff from corrections companies in health care,
prisoner banking, facility management, commissary, and other industries, and to learn about new services and products.
Corrections companies have capitalized on the opportunity to meet and influence potential customers through professional
corrections associations. This section (section two) shows how corrections companies spend millions of dollars sponsoring
conferences, paying vendor fees, and providing other funding to gain access to professional corrections associations. In total,
sponsors, vendors, corporate partners, and other non-individual entities contributed at least $3 million to five of the largest
professional corrections associations in 2014.* (For a list and description of these associations, see text box below.) The following
section (section three) then shows how corrections companies leverage this access to benefit their bottom lines.

The Professional Corrections Associations Reviewed in this Report

W

hile corrections companies spend resources and staff time building access to numerous professional corrections
associations that operate at the national and state levels, this report focuses its review on the influence of
corrections companies on five of the largest national associations. These five associations all hold annual conferences
and attract corrections officials from across the country. Due to time and resource considerations, other large
professional corrections associations, such as the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and the American
Probation and Parole Association, were not included in this report.

•	 American Correctional Association (ACA) provides corrections officials with career development
training, accredits correctional facilities, and advocates for public policy.76 ACA members come from
different levels of government and have a range of decision-making authority. The wardens and
superintendents, which attend ACA conferences in large numbers, have purview over the contracts
Continued next page
	*	$3 million is derived from summing the fees collected by ACA, AJA, ASCA, CTA, and NSA from sponsors, advertisements, vendors, corporate partners, and awards and scholarships in
2014. Information about some types of fees paid to certain associations is not publically available (e.g. the value of the fees paid by sponsors to the NSA is not available). The values
of these fees were excluded from the $3 million figure. Some of the fees included in the $3 million figure are based on assumptions (e.g. for calculating the value of the vendor fees,
researchers assumed that all booth spaces in the exhibition space were sold). The sources, assumptions, and methodology for calculating the fees can be found in the following notes.
•	 Sponsors paid ACA $200,000: See note 101.
•	 Sponsors paid AJA $75,000: See note 102.
•	 Sponsors paid CTA $150,000: See note 103.

•	 Advertisers paid ACA: $35,750: See note 107.
•	 Vendors paid ACA approximately $800,000: See note 116.
•	 Vendors paid AJA over $450,000: See note 117.

•	 Vendors paid NSA at least $1 million: See note 118.
•	 Corporate partners paid NSA $317,000: See note 119.
•	 Entities paid ASCA $38,500 in scholarships: See note 125.

BUYING ACCESS 	

13

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

signed with food, health care, and other service companies for their correctional facilities. ACA manages
a $9 million annual budget and has more than 20,000 members.77

•	 American Jail Association (AJA) supports officials that manage jails and other local correctional
facilities through workshops, seminars, and periodicals.78 Members include sheriffs, jail administrators,
judges, county commissioners, jail inspectors, and others, many of whom can make privatization decisions
for jails and probationary services.79 AJA manages a budget of $1.5 million.80

•	 Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) represents state corrections department
directors and other officials who oversee the administration of correctional facilities and systems in the
United States and Canada.81 The corrections department directors have influence, and often decisionmaking authority, over awarding contracts to private prison operators. ASCA’s budget is $940,000.82

•	 Corrections Technology Association (CTA) provides resources to officials who maintain the
technological systems at corrections agencies, departments, and facilities. Members are chief information
officers, information technology directors, and other corrections staff, and they have decision-making
authority over contracts with prisoner financial service and telecommunication companies.83 CTA has a
budget of $176,000.84

•	 National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) supports sheriffs, deputies, public safety officers, and other law
enforcement officials through trainings, education, advocacy, and grant guidance.85 Many NSA members
have the authority to hire health care, food service, and other contractors that provide services to jails. NSA
manages a budget of $5.6 million and has over 20,000 members.86
Since some corrections officials are members of multiple professional corrections associations, companies that have a
presence at more than one conference have the opportunity to influence and build relationships with the same officials
multiple times in a year.

Conference Sponsorships
Many professional corrections associations hold annual multi-day conferences and trainings, where thousands of
corrections employees attend workshops, meetings, speeches, and networking events. For example, AJA’s conference
averages 1,100 attendees, while NSA’s conference averages 2,300-2,800 attendees.87

The Decision Makers Who Attend Professional Corrections Association Conferences

C

onference attendees are often managers of corrections departments, offices, and facilities who have purchasing
power for services and products. The large presence of decision makers directly benefits corrections companies,
whose business models depend on contracts from the government. Often, the majority of attendees can make
contracting decisions for the public entity they represent:

•	 ACA conference attendees are most commonly supervisors, wardens, their deputies, and health care
workers. According to an ACA survey, 56% of attendees are “final decision makers.” 88

•	 90% of the attendees at AJA’s conferences can either purchase or recommend purchases for
their agencies.89

•	 According to CTA, “generally attendees are the primary technology ‘decision-makers’ for their respective
organizations.” 90

•	 The exhibitor prospectus for the NSA’s conference explains that the attendees are “sheriffs [who] have
buying power… for their counties,” “their appointed purchasing agents, and other qualified buyers.” 91

BUYING ACCESS 	

14

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Private corrections companies gain access to these conferences by purchasing sponsorships. For several thousands of
dollars, companies can buy the opportunity to build their business through leading workshops, promoting their products
through advertisements, and sending staff to build relationships and generate leads. For an analysis of the benefits
corporations receive by sponsoring conferences, see section three.
Among the five professional corrections associations assessed in this report, the organizations’ annual conferences in
2014 attracted 31 sponsors on average. (See Figure 2.) Some of these sponsors operate private prisons, jails, and detention
centers. Other sponsors provide services, such as health care, telecommunications, banking and commissary, to publicly
and privately run facilities.
Figure 2:
Corrections Companies Sponsor Conferences for Professional Corrections Associations 92

A number of corrections companies
attend multiple professional corrections
associations as corporate sponsors. For
example, in 2014, Wexford sponsored
conferences for the ACA, AJA, ASCA, and
NSA, and Telmate sponsored conferences
for the ACA, CTA, and NSA.94
Corrections companies purchase different
levels and types of sponsorships at
professional corrections association
conferences. Companies generally pay
between $5,000 and $10,000 to become
sponsors, and can pay as much as $30,000.
Below is a list of corporate sponsorship
costs for some conferences.95

•  American Correctional Association:

Note: Some sponsors provide services to both the corrections industry and other
sectors (e.g. Motorola, Harris Corporation). While the majority of conference sponsors
are private companies, a few sponsors are non-profit organizations and government
entities (e.g. Northwest University Center for Public Safety, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration).93

Sponsorship costs range from $2,500
for advertising on the conference map
to $30,000 for paying for the keynote
speech. Six of the sponsorships cost
$10,000 or more.96

•  American Jail Association: Companies

purchase sponsorships at bronze, silver,
and gold levels for $2,000, $4,000,
and $8,000, respectively. They can also pay for events, promotional merchandise, and other conference items
that range from $500 to $8,000.97

•	 Association of Women Executives in Corrections: Companies purchase sponsorships at gold, premier,
and platinum levels for $3,000, $5,000, and $10,000, respectively. All sponsorships give companies
opportunities to publicize at conference events.98

•	 Corrections Technology Association: Silver, gold, and platinum sponsorships cost $3,000, $5,000, and $7,500
respectively. Platinum sponsorship buys companies a range of advertising and marketing opportunities.99

•	 National Sheriffs’ Association: Companies have a choice of 22 different sponsorship types. Costs range from
$2,500 to host an ice cream break to $30,000 to host the conference itself. Ten of the sponsorships cost $10,000
or more.100

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Sponsorship dues, nearly all of which come from private companies, can be large sources of revenue for professional
corrections associations.

•	 Sponsors contributed $200,000 to ACA’s 2014 summer conference.101
•	 Sponsors contributed $75,000 to AJA’s 2014 conference.102
•	 Sponsors contributed $150,000 to CTA’s 2014 conference.103 In 2013, the most recent year for which CTA’s
tax filings are available, sponsors contributed $126,000 to the annual conference, equivalent to 71% of CTA’s
revenue for that year.104

Conference Program Advertisements
Many corrections corporations pay professional corrections associations for the opportunity to place advertisements in
conference program books and manuals. Conference sponsors for some professional corrections associations, such as CTA,
receive advertisement space in the conference guide as part of their sponsorship agreements.105 At other conferences,
such as those managed by ACA and NSA, companies can purchase advertisement space in the program book at costs that
range between $500 and $3,000 depending on the ad size, color, and placement.106 Companies paid ACA a total of $35,750
to advertise in its summer 2014 conference program.107 AJA allows sponsors and other companies to advertise on the
conference’s mobile app.108

Conference Vendor Fees
Professional corrections associations hold trade shows at their annual conferences to provide corrections officials with the
opportunity to learn about products and services. On the show floor, sales representatives and managers from corrections
companies meet face-to-face with wardens, police chiefs, corrections department heads, and other officials. For further
analysis of the benefits corporations receive as vendors, see section three.
Corrections companies pay professional corrections associations vendor fees for booths at the trade shows. These fees
often exceed $1,000:

•	 American Correctional Association: Companies pay at least $2,000 per booth.109
•	 American Jail Association: Returning companies pay at least $1,400 per booth. New companies pay at
least $1,000.110

•	 National Sheriffs’ Association: Companies pay at least $1,950 per booth.111
Companies often make larger payments to purchase booths better suited for meeting corrections decision makers and
selling their products. At the ACA conference, companies pay $2,400 for a booth on the corner of an aisle or between
$4,400 and $8,600 for additional space.112 At the AJA conference, companies pay $2,300 for a corner booth or $10,000 for
a space covering a block of booths.113 At the NSA conference, companies pay $2,100 for a corner booth.114
Contributions from private companies for exhibit space are a large source of revenue for some professional corrections
associations. ACA’s conference in August 2014 provided space for over 300 vendors.115 Assuming all vendors paid corporate
rates (non-profit organizations pay discounted rates) and all booth space was purchased, ACA would have received
approximately $800,000 from vendors.116 Assuming all vendors paid full price (affiliates and non-profit organizations
received discounted rates) and all booth space was purchased, AJA would have collected over $450,000 from 188 vendors
at its 2014 conference.117 Assuming all booth space was purchased, NSA received at least $1 million from vendors at its
2014 conference.118

15

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

General Support Contributions
Private corporations donate money to professional corrections associations to support their general operations. In
exchange, these corporations gain opportunities to meet with the association’s board members, advertise to its members,
and attend annual conferences.
Corporate contributions can be large sources of revenue for professional corrections associations. For example:

•	 In 2014, 86 companies paid the National Sheriffs’ Association $317,000 in “corporate partnership” dues,
equivalent to $3,700 from each company.119 NSA’s corporate partners include Aramark, Keefe Group, Securus
Technologies, and Wexford.120

•	 102 companies that provide services and products to jails have paid $350 to become members of the American
Jail Association, totaling $35,700. These companies include Aramark, BI Incorporated (a subsidiary of GEO
Group), Corizon, Global Tel*Link, JPay, Keefe Group, Naphcare, Pay-Tel, Securus Technologies, Telmate, Union
Supply, and Wexford.121

•	 Currently, 22 companies support the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, and have paid over
$200,000 in “corporate membership” dues.122 Alkermes, a pharmaceutical company, paid the NADCP $50,000.123
BI Incorporated, a subsidiary of GEO Group that sells electronic monitoring products, paid $10,500.124

Scholarships and Awards
Many corporations fund awards and scholarships that are managed by professional corrections associations. In return,
these corporations receive position name recognition and build their reputation with corrections officials.
For example, in 2014, 15 corporations paid ASCA a total of $38,500 to finance the Susan M. Hunter Scholarship, which
awards $500-$1,000 to college students with corrections worker parents.125 The largest contributors, which were Keefe
Group, CCA, GTL, and Union Supply, each contributed $5,000.126
Corrections companies also fund the National Organization of Hispanics in Criminal Justice’s (NOHCJ) scholarship program
for criminal justice students.127 In 2014, CCA funded the scholarships, and Keefe Group and Aramark sponsored the
ceremony reception.128
Every year, the National Sheriffs’ Association recognizes officers for their work through various awards funded by private
companies.129 For example, this year Aramark funded the Corrections/Jail Innovation of Year Award, which recognizes an
officer for implementing innovative programs to improve operations.130

16

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

S E C T ION 3

How Corrections Companies Influence Decision Makers in
Professional Corrections Associations
The millions of dollars spent by private corporations to access professional corrections
associations buy the companies opportunities to build their brands and market their products and services to decision
makers. The following section details the myriad ways corrections companies use their access to professional corrections
associations to benefit their bottom lines.

Corrections Companies Build Relationships with Key Officials
When companies pay to become sponsors or exhibitors at a professional corrections association’s conference, their
executives and staff can attend and build relationships with officials who make purchasing and contracting decisions.
Benefits of corporate sponsorship often include tickets to the conferences. For example, CTA’s platinum sponsors, including
GTL and Securus Technology, received five conference passes as part of their sponsorships.131 Professional corrections
associations also provide their sponsors with opportunities to purchase additional passes. At ACA’s 2014 summer
conference, CCA sent nearly 70 of its own employees.132
Corporate sponsors also receive lists of attendees before and after the conference, allowing them to target certain
corrections officials and follow up. ACA, AJA, CTA, and NSA all send sponsors attendee lists.133
In addition, companies that sponsor specific events at conferences gain opportunities to meet with corrections officials
and give speeches to attendees. For example, at NSA’s conferences, the staff of the corporate sponsor of two events, the
welcome reception and the deputy symposium reception, greet attendees. The corporate sponsor also speaks at four
events, including the keynote speech, board of directors’ dinner, first time attendees reception, and the reception for
National Sheriffs’ Institute graduates.134

How Corrections Companies Explain their Involvement in Professional
Corrections Associations

C

orrections companies view their involvement in conferences as a benefit to their brand and the industry as a whole.
An article in CCA’s magazine states, “CCA’s presence at [ACA’s 2014 summer] conference was as strong as ever”
and goes on to profile the workshops and presentations led by the prison operator’s staff.135 Similarly, at the end of
ACA’s 2014 winter conference, Keefe Group, which sells food, clothing, toiletries, and electronics to prisoners, reported
“as always, our booth received a lot of traffic from conference attendees,” and “we hosted an evening reception where
customers, prospects and partners enjoyed a nice evening of ood [sic], refreshments and plenty of networking.”136

17

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Corrections Companies Lead Conference Workshops
Corrections association conferences provide their attendees with professional development opportunities through
classroom-style lectures and discussions. These workshops teach corrections managers and staff new skills and programs
they can take back to their facilities. Content covers every aspect of corrections work, such as security, prisoner health care
and rehabilitation, staff management, and operations.
Many conference workshops are led by corrections companies. For example:

•	 American Correctional Association: Corrections company representatives moderated or presented at 36 of
the 99 workshops held at the ACA’s summer conference in 2014. Five workshops were led by CCA, seven were
led by Corizon, and three were led by Management and Training Corporation, all of which were conference
sponsors.137

•	 Corrections Technology Association: Corrections Technology Association: Company representatives made
presentations at 18 of the CTA conference’s 24 workshops in 2014. Seventeen workshops were led by
companies that sponsored the conference.138

•	 National Sheriffs’ Association: Seven companies presented one-hour seminars at the NSA’s 2014 conference.139
Corrections companies that sponsor conferences or provide general support contributions gain opportunities to create and
lead trainings, workshops, presentations, and briefings. For example:

•	 American Jail Association: Corporations pay $750 for a 25-minute time block to showcase their product or
service at the vendors’ stage on the trade show floor.140

•	 Corrections Technology Association: Every corporation that pays $3,000 to be a conference sponsor can
present a 50-minute workshop. Corporations that are willing to pay an additional $4,500 can also present
a “3.5 minute TED-like presentation of innovative concepts that will benefit corrections.” 141

•	 National Association of Drug Court Professionals: Companies that pay $10,500 or $25,000 to become
“members” are granted opportunities to present a 75-minute or three-hour training workshop,
respectively.142

•	 National Sheriffs’ Association: Companies that pay between $10,000 and $30,000 in sponsorship fees
are granted the opportunity to present a one-hour seminar (during the conference, attendees choose to
attend one of four or five concurrent seminars).143
At the workshops they lead, corrections companies promote their products and identify new customers. Often times,
companies will directly market goods and services through demonstrations, explaining the product’s benefits, and
reviewing the pricing. Other times, companies present best practices, tools for adhering to government standards, and new
technologies to increase the likelihood that decision makers turn to them when looking to make improvements to their
facilities. For example:

•	 Corizon: At ACA’s 2014 summer conference, Corizon staff led an hour-and-a-half workshop on the success of the
company’s weight loss program in improving prisoners’ health.144 At ACA’s 2015 winter conference, Corizon staff
also led a workshop on “key elements” in managing prisoner health care services.145

•	 HomeWAV: At CTA’s 2014 conference, the president of HomeWAV, which provides video call services to
prisoners and their families, paid $3,000 in sponsorship fees and led a 50-minute training session on how
the company’s services rehabilitate prisoners.146

•	 Jpay: At CTA’s 2014 conference, the vice president of marketing for JPay, which paid $5,000 in sponsorship
fees, led a 50-minute training session on the benefits of the company’s VideoGram service that enables
prisoners and their family and friends to send short video messages.147

18

BUYING ACCESS 	

19

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

•	 Telmate: t NSA’s 2014 conference, Telmate’s chief marketing officer led an hour-long seminar to promote the
company’s wireless tablets designed for prisoners.148 Telmate also sponsored the conference.149

•	 GEO Group: At ACA’s 2015 winter conference, a GEO Group warden spoke at a workshop promoting computer
kiosks for prisoners that allow them to purchase commissary products, correspond with their families, and
access music and other media.150

Corrections Companies Influence Professional Associations that Support Officials
Who Oversee a Range of Government Programs

T

his report focuses on the influence of corrections companies on professional corrections associations. However,
corrections companies also spend resources to access other professional associations, such as the National
Governors Association and the National Association of Counties, that support officials who oversee a range of
governmental programs, not solely corrections. These officials may be responsible for a range of decisions, including
purchasing, policy, and programmatic, that affect corrections companies’ bottom lines. Below are examples of
corrections companies that have gained influence to these other professional associations.

•	 Corrections Corporation of America is a “corporate fellow” with the National Governors Association
(NGA).151 Corporate fellowship benefits include a luncheon series with NGA senior executives, registration
for NGA’s biannual conferences, and opportunities to contribute to the Center for Best Practices (NGA’s
public policy incubator).152

•	 Geo Group contributed $25,000 to the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to qualify as a
“premier partner.”153 Benefits include a customized business plan for California counties developed with
CSAC staff, brand promotion on CSAC’s social media, registrations for the annual meeting and legislative
conference, and dinner with CSAC’s Board of Directors.154 BI Incorporated (a subsidiary of GEO Group),
Corrections Corporation of America, and Union Supply Group contributed $3,000 to qualify as
“associate partners.”155 Benefits include registrations for the annual meetings and legislative conference,
newsletters, and discounts to attend CSAC events.156 CSAC issues recommendations on how state funds for
corrections should be allocated.157

•	 Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc. was an exhibitor at the National Association of Counties’
2014 summer conference.158 Booth space cost ranged between $1,600 and $2,250.159

Corrections Companies Promote their Brands
Companies that sponsor professional corrections associations receive opportunities to promote their brand at associations’
annual conferences. Corporate sponsors can place advertisements in conference program books and print their logos and names
on conference materials, such as signs, banners, keycards, and tote bags.

Logo and Name Publicity in Conference Materials
Companies that sponsor professional corrections association conferences buy opportunities to display their corporate
logo or name on the conference signs, programs, posters, banners, and websites that list the sponsors. This publicity builds
companies’ name recognition among corrections officials who make purchasing and privatization decisions.
Companies that sponsor the National Sheriffs’ Association’s conference, for example, receive broad name publicity. The
exhibitor prospectus for the 2015 conference lists the ways sponsors receive name recognition, including through “the
conference program, event signage when applicable, NSA website and conference issue of Sheriff magazine, and floor
sticker at booth.”160 Similarly, corporate sponsors for the Association of Women Executives in Corrections that pay more than
$3,000 can have their name displayed on all publicity materials printed by the conference.161

BUYING ACCESS 	

20

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Left: Corporate sponsors receive publicity at ACA’s August 2013 conference.162
Above: Corporate sponsors receive publicity in CTA’s 2014 conference program manual.163

Companies pay special sponsorship fees to display their logos and names on items used by corrections officials at the
conference. For example, at conferences for the National Sheriffs’ Association and American Correctional Association,
companies pay to place their name, logo, and/or booth number on attendees’ hotel key cards, nametag holders, and
conference floor guide.164
At ACA’s 2014 summer conference, companies spent thousands of dollars to print their names on conference materials.
For instance:

•	 MTC paid $6,000 to print its name on attendees’ hotel keycards.165
•	 Wexford paid $6,000 to print its name on attendees’ nametag holders.166
•	 HDR, which designs correctional facilities, paid $3,500 to print its name on pocket-sized event guides.167
Companies also paid thousands of dollars to print their name on AJA’s 2014 conference materials. For instance:

•	 Paytel paid $3,000 to print its name on attendees’ nametag holders.168
•	 CGL, a corrections construction company, paid $3,000 to print its name on attendees’ hotel keycards.169
Companies also pay to print their logo on items that attendees take home. For instance:

•	 At NSA conferences, companies sponsor take-home mugs and pens.170
•	 At AJA conferences, companies sponsor duffle bags and water bottles.171 In 2014, Armor Correctional Health
Services and Diamond Pharmacy were the duffel bag sponsors.172

Advertisements in Conference Program Materials
Companies market their products and services to corrections officials through advertisements in conference programs,
planning guides, websites, mobile phone applications, and subscription magazines. In 2014, the program manual for ACA’s
summer conference contained 31 advertisements, including 26 full page ads.173 JPay placed four full-page advertisements
in the program’s first 15 pages.174 CTA’s 36-page program book for its 2014 conference contained 35 corporate
advertisements.175

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Advertisement examples include:

•	 In ACA’s 2015 planning guide sent to corrections officials before the conference, Corizon marketed its
corrections health care services in a full-page advertisement.176

•	 GEO Group also placed a full-page advertisement in ACA’s 2015 conference planning guide marketing its day
reporting centers.177

•	 GTL placed a full-page advertisement for its prison services in the program book for ACA’s 2014 conference.178
•	 Community Education Centers, Inc. also placed a full-page advertisement in ACA’s 2014 program book for its
residential re-entry centers and in-prison treatment programs.179

•	 In CTA’s 2014 conference program manual, JPay promoted its prisoner VideoGram service in a half-page
advertisement.180

•	 In CTA’s 2014 conference program manual, Union Supply Group promoted its prisoner U-TAB7 tablet in an
advertisement.181

•	 Keefe Group placed a full-page advertisement in the March/April 2014 edition of the magazine Sheriff for its
commissary and video call services.182

Above, left: GEO Group advertises its day reporting centers in ACA’s 2015 winter conference planning guide.184
Above, right: Corizon advertises its correctional health care services in ACA’s summer 2014 program book.185

21

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Logo and Name Publicity at Events
Corrections companies sponsor events at professional corrections associations such as dinners, receptions, and keynote
addresses. In addition to providing corporations with opportunities to meet and give speeches to corrections officials as
discussed earlier (see section titled “Corrections Companies Build Relationships with Key Officials” on page 17), these events
allow the sponsors to publicize their name and logo on event signs.
In 2014, companies that stood to win contracts from corrections officials sponsored a range of events at professional
corrections association conferences.

•	 At ACA’s conference, Aramark sponsored the general session, which was attended by 1,500 corrections
professionals according to ACA’s projections.186 In addition, Correct Rx (a pharmaceutical company) sponsored
a welcome reception for health care officials, MHM sponsored a special session and luncheon for health care
officials, and CCA and GEO Group co-sponsored the farewell reception, banquet, and awards ceremony.187

•	 At AJA’s conference, Keefe Group sponsored a reception for sheriffs, Aramark sponsored a refreshment event,
and Multiview (a digital marketing company) sponsored a networking event.188

•	 At the conference for the Association of Women Executives in Corrections, Keefe Group sponsored the reception
on the first evening, MTC sponsored the reception on the second evening, and Union Supply sponsored the
lunch reception.189

•	 At CTA’s conference, Syscon Justice Systems (a software provider for corrections facilities) sponsored the golf
tournament.190 In 2013, GTL joined Syscon in sponsoring the event.191

•	 At the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association conference, Corizon sponsored the dinner cruise, and Wexford and Securus
Technologies co-sponsored the banquet.192

•	 At NSA’s conference, CCA hosted a reception for first-time attendees, Telmate hosted a reception for deputies
and law enforcement personnel, and Wexford sponsored an ice cream break in the exhibit hall.193

Above, left: MHM Correctional Services and Centurion (two partner correctional health care companies) sponsored a luncheon and special session at ACA’s 2014
winter conference.194
Above, right: Aramark sponsored the general session speaker event at ACA’s 2013 winter conference.195

22

BUYING ACCESS 	

23

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Corrections Companies Generate Leads at Vendor Booths
Hundreds of companies attend conferences as vendors where they directly market their products and services to
correctional decision makers at trade show booths. For example, about 330 vendors attended NSA’s conference
in 2015, and 188 vendors attended AJA’s conference in 2014.196
At AJA’s conference, companies directly market and sell their products and services for 9.5 hours on the show
floor.197 At the NSA conference, companies sell their products and services for 10 hours.198
At the booths, companies market a
range of products, such as uniforms,
software, and commissary food, as well
as services, such as health care, money
transfers (between prisoners and their
families), and rehabilitation programs.
Corrections facility operators, such
as CCA, Geo Group, and Community
Education Centers, attempt to identify
new opportunities to win contracts for
managing entire facilities.
Companies become passport
sponsors as a way of maximizing lead
generation. As a passport sponsor,
a company stamps attendees’
“passports” when they visit the booth.
For attendees to qualify for the raffle
drawing at the end of the conference,
they must collect stamps from all the
passport sponsors.199 At ACA’s 2014
summer conference, five exhibitors,
including the Community Education
Centers, each paid $5,000 to become
passport sponsors.200 The raffle prize
that year was a new Fiat 500.201 At
AJA’s 2014 conference, 18 exhibitors,
including Union Supply Group and
Correctional Health Companies, Inc.,
each paid $500 to become passport
sponsors.202
At NSA’s 2014 conference, Armor
Correctional Health Services sponsored
a “relaxation station,” which provided
massage chairs to attendees. In order
to use the chairs, attendees needed to
obtain a ticket from Armor’s booth.203
Above, top: Union Supply Group markets commissary and other products at ACA’s 2013 summer conference.204
Above, bottom: Wexford markets health care services at ACA’s 2013 summer conference.205

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

S E C T ION 4

Conclusion
This analysis shows how corrections companies have capitalized on the opportunity to meet
and influence government decision makers through professional corrections associations. First, these companies
spend millions of dollars sponsoring conferences, paying vendor fees, and providing other funding to gain access to the
associations. Then corrections companies leverage this access in ways that can benefit their bottom lines.
Considering corrections companies’ track records of providing low-quality services that harm prisoners, communities,
and taxpayers, the influence they exert on government officials through professional corrections associations is cause
for concern. To protect the public interest, the public should be able to monitor companies’ involvement in the associations.
With transparency, watchdog groups, government officials and others can prevent contracts, programs, and policies that
benefit corrections companies’ bottom lines but harm other stakeholders.
This report tabulates several of the contributions made by corrections companies to professional corrections associations and
lists some examples of how corrections companies leverage these contributions to influence decision makers. However, the
findings in this report constitute only a portion of the total contributions made by companies and the subsequent opportunities
they receive to influence decision makers. To achieve full transparency, professional corrections associations should publish
complete reports that provide details on the contributions from private companies and the benefits the companies receive in
return. Only then can the public more fully monitor the influence of corrections companies and protect the public interest.

The Need for More Research on the Effects of Corporate Influence on
Professional Corrections Associations

A

s this report shows, corrections companies lead workshops and trainings, market their brands, and find new customers
through their involvement in professional corrections associations. Research is lacking, however, on the extent to which
this involvement allows the companies to win contracts and affect corrections officials’ policy and program decisions.

What is known is that private corrections companies are expanding and gaining market share. According to corporate
tax filings, from 2005 to 2014, GEO Group’s annual revenues grew from $580 million to $1.7 billion, and CCA’s revenue
grew from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion.206 While revenues for privately-held companies are proprietary information, various
companies have reported on the number of incarcerated people they serve and facilities with which they work. Between
2010 and 2015, Wexford grew from serving 91,000 prisoners and patients in 100 facilities to serving 112,000 in 175
facilities.207 From 2011 to 2015, Telmate grew from servicing 100 facilities to servicing 240.208 Considering that the majority,
if not all, of corrections companies’ revenues come from government contracts, this growth is largely attributable to new
contracts from government officials.
Corrections companies’ continual involvement in professional corrections associations coupled with their growing revenues
from government contracts suggests that they have achieved a return on their investments in the associations, but more
research is needed that describes and measures this return.

24

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

Notes
	1

	 For a synopsis of “tough on crime” federal policies in the 1980s and 1990s, see Arit John, “A Timeline of the Rise and Fall of ‘Tough on Crime’ Drug Sentencing,” The Wire, 22 April 2014.

	2

	 E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Imprisonment rate of sentenced prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities per 100,000 U.S. residents,
December 31, 1978-2013” (Excel spreadsheet), 7 August 2014, downloaded from www.bjs.gov/nps/resources/documents/QT_imp%20rate_tot.xlsx on 25 June 2015.

	3

	 In 1980, the private corrections industry was nonexistent: American Civil Liberties Union, “Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration,” November 2011. By 2013,
corrections companies were managing the incarceration of 133,000 people: E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Number of prisoners held in private prisons under the
jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities, December 31, 1999-2013” (Excel spreadsheet), 6 August 2014, downloaded from www.bjs.gov/nps/resources/documents/QT_
privates_tot.xlsx, downloaded on 25 June 2015. 133,000 is 8 percent of the total prison population: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,
“Prisoners in 2013,” 30 September 2014.

	4

	 Founded in 2002: Alan Johnson, “Inmates To Get E-mail, But No Web Access,” The Columbus Dispatch, 26 January 2010. 1.7 million inmates (nearly 70 percent of all people incarcerated):
Daniel Wagner, “Prison Bankers Cash in on Captive Customers,” The Center for Public Integrity, posted on 30 September 2014, updated on 11 November 2014.

	5

	 E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Number of prisoners held in private prisons under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities, December 31, 1999 – 2013”
(Excel spreadsheet), 6 August 2014, downloaded from www.bjs.gov/nps/resources/documents/QT_privates_tot.xlsx, downloaded on 25 June 2015.

	6

	 Contribute to campaigns: National Institute on Money in State Politics, “Showing Correctional Facilities Construction & Management/For-Profit Contributions to Candidates and
Committees” (data tool) downloaded from www.followthemoney.org, 18 May 2015. CCA lobbies: National Institute on Money in State Politics, “Corrections Corp of America” (data
tool), downloaded from www.followthemoney.org, 28 April 2015. GEO Group lobbies: National Institute on Money in State Politics, “GEO Group” (data tool), downloaded from www.
followthemoney.org, 28 April 2015.

	7

	 At least seventeen states and the federal government have partially repealed or lessened the severity of mandatory sentences: Ram Subramanian and Ruth Delaney, Vera Institute
for Justice, “Playbook for Change? States Reconsider Mandatory Minimum Sentences,” February 2014. Voters in California overturned the state’s three strikes law: Tracey Kaplan,
“Proposition 36: Voters Overwhelmingly Ease Three Strikes Law,” San Jose Mercury News, 6 November 2012.

	 8	

Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of people in prisons fell from 506 to 478 prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents: See note 2. From 2009 to 2013, the number of people in prisons
fell from 1,615,487 to 1,575,434: E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities, December 31, 1978-2013” (Excel
spreadsheet), 7 January 2015. The number of probationers has increased: Christopher Hartney and Caroline Glesmann, National Council on Crime & Delinquency, “Prison Bed Profiteers:
How Corporations Are Reshaping Criminal Justice in the U.S.,” May 2012.

9

	Corrections Corporation of America, “The CCA Story: Our Company History,” downloaded from www.cca.com/our-history, 23 June 2015.

10

About 330 businesses were exhibitors at NSA’s 2015 conference: Eric Markowitz, “Baltimore Is Hosting America’s Largest Police Expo This Week and Military-Style Tanks and Grenade
Launchers Are On Display,” International Business Times, 29 June 2015.

11

	American Correctional Association, “Exhibitor Prospectus: 144th Congress of Correction,” 15 – 20 August 2014.

12

	Corrections Technology Association, “2014 Summit Sponsor Guide,” 1 – 4 June 2014.

13

	For further discussion on how private prison operators use campaign contributions, lobbying, and relationships and associations to influence policy, see Justice Policy Institute,
“Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies,” June 2011.

14

	National Institute on Money in State Politics, “Showing Correctional Facilities Construction & Management/For-Profit Contributions to Candidates and Committees” (data tool),
downloaded from www.followthemoney.org, 18 May 2015. $4.7 million constitutes contributions to candidates at the federal, state, and local levels.

15

	CCA: National Institute on Money in State Politics, “Corrections Corp of America” (data tool), downloaded from www.followthemoney.org, 28 April 2015. GEO Group: National Institute
on Money in State Politics, “GEO Group” (data tool), downloaded from www.followthemoney.org, 28 April 2015.

16

	Private prison companies constitute a $5 billion industry: Gabrielle Canon, “Here’s the Latest Evidence of How Private Prisons Are Exploiting Inmates for Profit,” Mother Jones, 17 June 2015.

17

	Corrections Corporation of America, “See CCA’s Nationwide System of Correctional Centers,” downloaded from www.cca.com/locations, 18 May 2015.

18

	GEO Group, “Locations,” downloaded from www.geogroup.com/locations, 18 May 2015.

19

	Management & Training Corporation, “Corrections Overview,” downloaded from www.mtctrains.com/corrections/corrections-overview, 18 May 2015.

20

	American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, “Warehoused and Forgotten: Immigrants Trapped in Our Shadow Private Prison System,” June 2014, page 87.

21

	Hannah Furfaro, “Corrections Corporation of America Admits to Falsifying Staffing Records,” Huffington Post (Associated Press), 11 April 2013.

22

	“FBI Investigates Idaho Prison run by Private Corporation,” Al Jazeera America, 7 March 2014.

23

	Grassroots Leadership, “Considering a Private Jail, Prison, or Detention Center? High Turnover and Unique Security Problems Created by Private Prisons,” 2009.

24

	Grant Duwe and Valerie Clark, Minnesota Department of Corrections, “The Effects of Private Prison Confinement in Minnesota on Offender Recidivism,” March 2013.

25

	Curtis Blakely and Vic Bumphus, “Private and Public Sector Prisons: A Comparison of Selected Characteristics,” Federal Probation, Volume 68, Number 1, June 2004.

26

	For meta-analyses, see: In the Public Interest, “Costs of Private Prisons,” April 2014.

27

	In the Public Interest, “Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and ‘Low-Crime Taxes’ Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations,” 19 September 2013.

28

	Aramark, “Correctional Facilities: Food Services,” downloaded from www.aramark.com/industries/business-government/correctional-facilities/food-services, 18 May 2015.

29

	Food shortages and maggots: “For-Profit Prison Food Vendor Aramark’s Scandals Aren’t Just a Michigan Problem,” Eclectablog, 11 August 2014. Misconduct: “Aramark Prison Employee
Investigated for Arranging Murder-for-Hire at Michigan Prison, School Pays Price for Hiring Them,” Eclectablog, 25 September 2014. Also see Randy Ludlow, “Vendor Fined $142,100 for
Prison-Meal Problems,” The Columbus Dispatch, 19 April 2014.

30

	Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., “About,” downloaded from armorcorrectional.com/about, 30 June 2015.

31

	Corizon Health, “About Corizon Health,” downloaded from www.corizonhealth.com/About-Corizon/Locations, 28 April 2015.

32

	280,000: MHM Services, Inc., “MHM Services, Inc. (MHM), Is a Leading National Provider of Healthcare Services to State and Local Government Agencies,” downloaded from www.mhmservices.com/index.html, 18 May 2015. Also see note 33.

33

	Jeffrey C. Nahley, et al., Signal Hill, “The U.S. Corrections Industry State of the Union: “A Wall Street Handbook,’” July 2012.

34

	Wexford Health Sources Incorporated, “History,” downloaded from www.wexfordhealth.com/About-Us/History, 28 April 2015. Note: While In the Public Interest usually uses the word
“prisoner” in reference to people who have been incarcerated, in this instance, researchers used the word “offender” to match the terminology used by Wexford.

35

	For examples see Pat Beall, “Privatizing Prison Health Care Leaves Inmates in Pain, Sometimes Dying,” Tribune Business News, 27 September 2014.

36

	Mary Bottari and Jonas Persson, “Inmates Die in Droves After Governor Rick Scott Outsources Prison Healthcare,” PR Watch, 16 October 2014.

37

	“Florida Prison Health Care Brings Back Old Worries,” North Escambia, 22 January 2015.

38

	Dan Christensen, “Florida Prison Officials Didn’t Ask, Companies Didn’t Tell about Hundreds of Malpractice Cases,” Florida Bulldog, 2 October 2013.

39

	Ibid.

40

	“Pennsylvania: Wexford Settles Case Involving Death of Prisoner’s Baby,” Prison Legal News, 5 March 2015.

41

	50% of the market: Timothy Williams, “The High Cost of Calling the Imprisoned,” The New York Times, 30 March 2015. 1.1 million inmates in 2,100 facilities: GTL, “Company Profile,”
downloaded from www.gtl.net/about-us/company-profile, 18 May 2015.

42

	Securus Technologies, “Facilities We Serve,” downloaded from securustech.net/facilities-we-serve, 18 May 2015.

43

	Telmate, “About Us,” downloaded from www.telmate.com/about-us, 28 April 2015.

25

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

44

	Todd Shields, “Prison Phones Prove Captive Market for Private Equity,” Bloomberg Business, 4 October 2012.

45

	Mark Wigfield, Federal Communications Commission, “FCC Reduces High Long-Distance Calling Rates Paid by Inmates” (press release), 9 August 2013.

46

	Alex Friedmann, “Lowering Recidivism through Family Communication,” Prison Legal News, 15 April 2014.

47

	Ann Marie Ames, “Monitor System Replaces In-Person Visits at Rock County Jail,” GazetteXtra, 10 September 2012.

48

	Matt Stroud and Joshua Brustein, “Expensive ‘Prison Skype’ Is Squeezing Out In-Person Visitation,” Bloomberg, 27 April 2015. Also see Bernadette Rabuy and Peter Wagner, Prison Policy
Initiative, “Screening Out Family Time: The For-Profit Video Visitation Industry in Prisons and Jails,” January 2015. Also see Bernadette Rabuy, Prison Policy Initiative, “Securus Ends Its Ban
on In-Person Visits, Shifts Responsibility to Sheriffs” (press release), 6 May 2015.

49

	See note 50. Note: Securus Technology purchased JPay in April 2015. Source: Nancy Dahlberg, “Dallas Firm Buys Miramar Tech Company JPay,” Miami Herald, 14 April 2015.

50

	Daniel Wagner, “Prison Bankers Cash in on Captive Customers,” The Center for Public Integrity, 30 September 2014.

51

	Ibid.

52

	Costs to families: Ibid. Higher rates of recidivism: Matt Sledge, “Prison Phone Call Industry Will Fight Lowering Rates for Inmates,” Huffington Post, 9 September 2013.

53

	Amirah Al Idrus, “Debit Cards Slam Released Prisoners with Sky-High Fees, Few Protections,” The Center for Public Integrity, 30 September 2014.

54

	Ibid.

55

	See note 33.

56

	Anat Rubin, “A Record of Trouble: California Looks to Halfway Houses, Finds a Company Cited for Violence and Escapes,” The Marshall Project, 11 April 2015.

57

	Ibid.

58

	Ibid.

59

	Ibid.

60

	Ibid.

61

	Regarding prison telecommunication companies, such as Global Tel*Link and Securus, Paul Wright from Prison Legal News states, “These companies already have a kickback model
established with their prison phone contracts. So it’s easy to leverage those contracts into video visitation, money transfer, [and] access to e-mail.” See Matt Stroud and Joshua Brustein,
“Expensive ‘Prison Skype’ Is Squeezing Out In-Person Visitation,” Bloomberg, 27 April 2015.

62

	Aramark, “Commissary Service,” downloaded from www.aramarkcorrections.com/our-services/commissary-services, 24 April 2015.

63

	See note 9.

64

	See note 18.

65

	BI, “GEO Family,” downloaded from bi.com/company/geo-family, 31 July 2015. Also see Julie Turkewitz, “Immigrant Mothers Released From Holding Centers, but with Ankle Monitors,”
The New York Times, 29 July 2014.

66

	JPay, “The Fastest Way to Write an Inmate,” downloaded from www.jpay.com/PEMessages.aspx, 24 April 2015.

67

	Keefe Group, “Access Secure Deposits,” downloaded from www.keefegroup.com/services/deposit-services-119, 24 April 2015. Also see Keefe Group, “ICSolutions,” downloaded from
www.keefegroup.com/companies/icsolutions-115, 31 July 2015.

68

	Telmate, “Products and Solutions,” downloaded from www.telmate.com/the-telmate-ecosystem, 27 April 2015.

69

	Keefe Group, “What We Sell,” downloaded from www.keefegroup.com/products/what-we-sell-131, 18 May 2015.

70

	Tim Barker, “Prison Services Are Profitable Niche for Bridgeton Company,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 15 February 2015.

71

	Union Supply Direct, “Welcome,” downloaded from www.unionsupplydirect.com, 18 May 2015. 18 states derived from counting the number of states from the dropdown menu for
placing an order.

72

	David Reutter, “Florida DOC and Keefe Gouge Prisoners on Commissary Sales,” Prison Legal News, 15 October 2009.

73

	See note 70.

74

	See note 72.

75

	Jimmy Hancock, “Impersonal Jail Tech: Family of Inmate Dislikes Changes at the Jailhouse,” Idaho State Journal, 27 February 2013.

76

	American Correctional Association, “Home,” downloaded from www.aca.org, 19 March 2015.

77

	$9 million: American Correctional Association, “Form 990-EZ: 2012,” downloaded from www.guidestar.org, 19 March 2015. 20,000 members: See note 11.

78

	American Jail Association, “About Us,” downloaded from www.americanjail.org/american-jail-assocation, 19 March 2015.

79

	American Jail Association, “Be a Part of the Voice for Local Corrections,” downloaded from members.aja.org/benefits.aspx, 19 March 2015.

80

	American Jail Association, “Form 990-EZ: 2013,” downloaded from www.guidestar.org, 19 March 2015.

81

	Association of State Correctional Administrators, “Organization of ASCA: Membership,” downloaded from www.asca.net/projects/22/pages/173, 19 March 2015.

82

	Association of State Correctional Administrators, “Form 990-EZ: 2013,” downloaded from www.guidestar.org, 19 March 2015.

83

	Corrections Technology Association, “About: CTA Definition,” downloaded from correctionstech.org/about-us/mission, 19 March 2015.

84

	Corrections Technology Association, “Form 990-EZ: 2013,” downloaded from www.guidestar.org, 19 March 2015.

85

	National Sheriffs’ Association, “About NSA,” downloaded from www.sheriffs.org/content/about-nsa, 19 March 2015.

86

	National Sheriffs’ Association, “Form 990: 2011,” downloaded from www.guidestar.com, 19 March 2015. 20,000 members: National Sheriffs’ Association, “NSA Membership,” downloaded
from www.sheriffs.org/content/nsa-membership, 19 March 2015.

87

	AJA: American Jail Association, “Exhibitor Information: Annual Training Conference & Jail Expo,” 27-30 April 2014. NSA: See note 91. Researchers derived “2,300-2,800” from subtracting
the number of exhibiting attendees (1,400) from the total number of attendees (between 3,700 and 4,200).

88

	American Correctional Association, “ACA’s 2015 Winter Conference: Exhibitor Prospectus,” 6 – 11 February 2015.

89

	American Jail Association, “Become Unforgettable… Be an AJA Sponsor,” no date.

90

	Corrections Technology Association, “2015 Summit Sponsor Guide,” 31 May – 3 June 2015.

91

	National Sheriffs’ Association, “2015 Exhibitor’s Prospectus,” 26 June – 1 July 2015.

92

	See note 137, pages 32 – 33. Also see American Jail Association, “The American Jail Association would like to thank our 2014 Sponsors & Exhibitors!” downloaded from www.
americanjail.org/education/annual-training-conference/2014-sponsors-exhibitors-2, 16 January 2015. Note: BobBarker and Officers Only by BobBarker were considered to be one
sponsor. Also see Association of State Correctional Administrators, “Summer Meetings: Schedule of Events,” 14 – 17 August 2014. Also see Corrections Technology Association, “15th
Annual Technology Summit” (program book), 1 – 4 June 2014, last page. Also see National Sheriffs’ Association, “2014 Annual Conference and Exhibition” (program book), 20 – 25 June
2014, page 6.

93

	National Sheriffs’ Association, “2014 Annual Conference & Exhibition” (program book), 20 – 25 June 2014.

94

	See note 92.

95

	Not all event and item sponsorships for sale are necessarily purchased by corporate sponsors. While professional corrections associations create sponsorship opportunities for many
events and items, the associations are not necessarily successful in finding sponsors for all events and items. ASCA’s sponsorship costs are excluded from this bulleted list because
researchers did not have access to the relevant information. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, ASCA’s website lists the sponsorship costs of the Susan M. Hunter Scholarship
(available at www.asca.net/projects/20/pages/151) but not the sponsorship costs of the organization’s summer meetings.

26

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

96

	See note 11.

97

	American Jail Association, “Available Sponsorships for AJA’s 33rd Annual Training Conference & Jail Expo,” no date.

98

	Association of Women Executives in Corrections, “Sponsor Program,” downloaded from www.awec.us/sponsor-program, 14 January 2015.

99

	See note 12.

100

	See note 91.

101

	See notes 11 and 137. Researchers deduced “$200,000” from the list of sponsors and sponsorship types on pages 32 – 33 of the Program Book and the list of sponsorship costs from
pages 15 – 16 of the Exhibitor Prospectus.

102

	See note 97. Also see American Jail Association, “The American Jail Association would like to thank our 2014 Sponsors & Exhibitors!,” downloaded from www.americanjail.org/
education/annual-training-conference/2014-sponsors-exhibitors-2, 16 January 2015. Researchers deduced “$75,000” from the list of sponsors and sponsorship types from AJA’s
website and the list of sponsorship costs on pages 1 – 2 of the “Available Sponsorships” document.

103

	See notes 12 and 138. Researchers deduced “$150,000” from the list of sponsors and sponsorship levels on the last page of the program book and the list of sponsorship costs on pages
2 – 3 of the Sponsor Guide.

104

	Corrections Technology Association, “2013 Summit Sponsor Guide,” 2 – 5 June 2013. Also see Corrections Technology Association, “14th Annual Technology Summit” (program book),
2-5 June 2013. Also see Corrections Technology Association, “Form 990-EZ: 2013,” downloaded from www.guidestar.com, 24 March 2014. Researchers deduced $126,000 from the list
of sponsors and sponsorship levels on the last page of the program book and the list of sponsorship costs on pages 2 – 3 of the Sponsor Guide. Researchers calculated 71% by dividing
$126,000 by $178,425, which is the total revenue listed on CTA’s 990 form.

105

	See note 12.

106

	ACA: See note 11. NSA: See note 91.

107

	See notes 11 and 137. “$35,750” derived from tabulating the advertisements in the program book with the advertisement prices from the exhibitor prospectus.

108

	See note 97.

109

	See note 11.

110

	American Jail Association, “2015 AJA Exhibitor Prospectus: AJA’s 34th Annual Conference & Jail Expo,” 19 – 22 April 2015.

111

	See note 93. Note: Platinum-level corporate partners receive a complimentary booth at the conference. Gold-level corporate partners receive a 30% discount on the booth. Silver-level
corporate partners receive a 10% discount on the booth. Source: National Sheriffs’ Association, “Corporate Partnership Information,” downloaded from www.sheriffs.org/content/
corporate-partnership-information, 20 January 2015.

112

	See note 11.

113

	See note 110.

114

	See note 111.

115

	See note 11. “Over 300” derived from tallying the number of booth spaces from the exhibit hall map on page 10.

116

	See note 11. Researchers used the map on page 10 and the costs on page 7 to deduce “$800,000.” Researchers considered all booths along the perimeter of the exhibit space as
“inline” booths, which cost less than corner booths. Researchers also assumed that a block of six booths cost the equivalent of a 20’ x 20’“bulk space” ($8,600) and two inline booths
($2,000 each).

117

	$450,000 derived from the map of the floor plan and booth prices on page 2 of the exhibitor’s information packet from 2014: American Jail Association, “Exhibitor Information: AJA’s
33rd Annual Training Conference & Jail Expo,” 27-30 April 2014. “188 vendors” derived from tallying the number of vendors on page 12 of AJA’s exhibitor prospectus from 2015: see note
110.

118

	See note 198. “At least $1 million” derived from the map of the floor plan on page 8 and the prices on page 3. Researchers considered all booths along the perimeter of the exhibit
space as inline booths, which cost less than corner booths. Note: Researchers assumed that every corporate partner purchased or received a corner vendor booth. Platinum-level
corporate partners receive a complimentary booth at the conference. Gold-level corporate partners receive a 30% discount on the booth. Silver-level corporate partners receive a
10% discount on the booth. Source: National Sheriffs’ Association, “Corporate Partnership Information,” downloaded from www.sheriffs.org/content/corporate-partnership-information,
20 January 2015.

119

	See note 120. Also see National Sheriffs’ Association, “Corporate Partnership Information,” downloaded from web.archive.org/web/20140703000314/http://www.sheriffs.org/content/
corporate-partnership-information, downloaded on 9 July 2015, screen captured on 3 July 2014. Researchers deduced “$317,000” from the “Corporate Partnership Information”
webpage, which lists the costs of each partnership level, and the “Corporate Partners” web page, which lists the companies for each level of partnership. Researchers assumed that the
companies paid the costs listed in the “Corporate Partnership Information” webpage. Researchers also assumed that the costs and corporate partners listed were for the year 2014.

120

	National Sheriffs’ Association, “Corporate Partners,” downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/20140702234550/http://www.sheriffs.org/content/corporate-partners, downloaded
on 9 July 2015, screen captured on 2 July 2014.

121

	American Jail Association, “2015 Corporate Member Listing” (spreadsheet), no date on source, downloaded from members.aja.org/benefits.aspx, downloaded on 19 March 2015.

122

	See note 123. Researchers deduced $200,000 from the “Corporate Member Benefits” document, which lists the costs of each membership level, and the “Corporate Members”
webpage, which lists the companies for each level of membership. Researchers assumed that the members paid the costs listed in the “Corporate Member Benefits” document.

123

	National Association of Drug Court Professionals, “Corporate Members,” downloaded from www.nadcp.org/partner/nadcp-corporate-members, 20 January 2015. Also see National
Association of Drug Court Professionals, “Corporate Member Benefits,” downloaded from www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/2014/New%202014%20Corporate%20Benefits_0.pdf,
20 January 2015.

124

	Subsidiary of GEO Group: BI, “About Us,” downloaded from bi.com/company/about-us, 11 March 2015. $10,500: Ibid.

125

	Association of State Correctional Administrators, “Susan M. Hunter Scholarship: Scholarship Funding,” downloaded from www.asca.net/projects/20/pages/151, 20 January 2015.
Researcher tabulated “$38,500” from contributions made by each donor.

126

	Ibid.

127

	National Organization of Hispanics in Criminal Justice, “Presidents Message,” downloaded from www.nohcj.org, 20 January 2014.

128

	Ibid. Note: The New Mexico Women in Corrections Organization also sponsored the scholarships. ICSolutions also sponsored the reception.

129

	National Sheriffs’ Association, “2015 Awards,” no date.

130

	Ibid.

131

	See notes 12 and 138.

132

	Charlotte Higgins, Corrections Corporation of America, “CCA Stays on the Front Line of the Corrections Industry,” downloaded from www.cca.com/insidecca/cca-stays-on-the-front-lineof-the-corrections-industry, 23 January 2015. Note: some of CCA’s employees were likely managers and staff of private facilities.

133

	ACA: American Correctional Association, “2014 Winter Conference: Exhibitor Prospectus,” 31 January – 5 February 2014. AJA: See note 97. CTA: See note 12. Note: Attendee lists are
available to platinum sponsors. NSA: See note 91.

134

	See note 91.

135

	Charlotte Higgins, Corrections Corporation of America, “CCA Stays on the Front Line of the Corrections Industry,” posted on 24 September 2014, downloaded from www.cca.com/
insidecca/cca-stays-on-the-front-line-of-the-corrections-industry, downloaded on 25 March 2015.

136

	Keefe Group, “American Correctional Association (ACA) Conference,” downloaded from www.keefegroup.com, 25 March 2015.

137

	American Correctional Association, “Program Book: 144th Congress of Correction,” 15 – 20 August 2014.

138

	Corrections Technology Association, “15th Annual Technology Summit” (program book), 1 – 4 June 2014.

27

BUYING ACCESS 	
How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

139

	See note 93.

140

	See note 110.

141

	See note 12. While the Sponsor Guide states that a sponsor may give a 60-minute presentation, the workshops are 50-minutes in the program book: See note 138.

142

	National Association of Drug Court Professionals, “Corporate Member Benefits,” no date on source, downloaded from www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/2014/New%202014%20
Corporate%20Benefits_1.pdf, downloaded on 16 March 2015.

143

	See note 91.

144

	See note 137, page 67.

145

	American Correctional Association, “2015 Winter Conference Program Book,” 6 – 11 February 2015, page 62.

146

	See note 12. Also see note 138, page 20. While the Sponsorship Guide states “under no circumstances are you allowed to market or promote specific products or services in
breakout sessions,” CTA likely uses very narrow definitions of “market” and “promote,” as the program guide for the conference indicates that companies lead sessions on the benefits
of their products.

147

	See note 12. Also see note 138, page 25.

148

	See note 93, page 5.

149

	See note 93, page 6.

150

	See note 145, page 66.

151

	National Governors Association, “List of Corporate Fellows: January 30, 2015,” downloaded from www.nga.org/cms/cflist, 24 March 2015.

152

	National Governors Association, “NGA Corporate Fellows Program,” no date on source, downloaded from www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/
NGACORPORATEFELLOWSBROCHURE.PDF, downloaded on 24 March 2015.

153

	GEO Group: California State Association of Counties, “Corporate Member Program: Premier Partners,” downloaded from www.counties.org/premier-partners, 24 March 2015. $25,000:
California State Association of Counties, “CSAC Premier Partnership,” no date on source, downloaded from ddcache2.net/csaccounties.SE310/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2014_
premier_partnership_0.pdf, downloaded on 24 March 2015.

154

	California State Association of Counties, “CSAC Premier Partnership,” no date on source, downloaded from ddcache2.net/csaccounties.SE310/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2014_
premier_partnership_0.pdf, downloaded on 24 March 2015.

155

	BI Incorporated, Corrections Corporation of America, and Union Supply Group: California State Association of Counties, “Corporate Member Program: Associate Partners,” downloaded
from www.counties.org/associate-partners, 24 March 2015. $3,000: California State Association of Counties, “CSAC Associate Partnership,” no date on source, downloaded from
ddcache1.net/csaccounties.SE310/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2014_associate_partnership_0.pdf, downloaded on 24 March 2015.

156

	California State Association of Counties, “CSAC Associate Partnership,” no date on source, downloaded from ddcache1.net/csaccounties.SE310/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2014_
associate_partnership_0.pdf, downloaded on 24 March 2015.

157

	For example, see California State Association of Counties and County Administrative Officers Association of California, “Final Recommendation of Realignment Allocation Committee
(RAC): Distribution of AB 109 Funds: Community Corrections and District Attorney/Public Defender Subaccounts,” October 2014.

158

	National Association of Counties, “2015 Annual Conference and Exposition: Exhibitor Prospectus,” 10 – 13 July 2015.

159

	National Association of Counties, “2014 Annual Conference and Exposition County Solutions and Idea Marketplace: Exhibitor’s Prospectus,” 11 – 14 July 2014.

160

	See note 91.

161

	Association of Women Executives in Corrections, “Sponsor Program,” downloaded from www.awec.us/sponsor-program, 14 January 2015.

162

	American Correctional Association, “143rd Congress of Correction – August 2013” Facebook album, downloaded from www.facebook.com/photo.
php?fbid=10151605761336966&set=a.10151293906156966.460486.26897531965&type=3&theater, 19 May 2015.

163

	See note 138.

164

	See notes 11 and 91.

165

	See notes 11 and 137.

166

	Ibid.

167

	Ibid. HDR designs correctional facilities: HDR, “Justice,” downloaded from www.hdrinc.com/markets/architecture/justice, 26 January 2015.

168

	See note 97. Also see American Jail Association, “The American Jail Association would like to thank our 2014 Sponsors & Exhibitors!,” downloaded from www.americanjail.org/
education/annual-training-conference/2014-sponsors-exhibitors-2, 16 January 2015.

169

	Ibid. CGL is a corrections construction company: CGL, “Adult Detention,” downloaded from www.cglcompanies.com/sites/cgl/files/html/CGL_Adult_Detention.pdf, 30 April 2015.

170

	See note 91.

171

	See note 97.

172

	Ibid. Also see American Jail Association, “The American Jail Association would like to thank our 2014 Sponsors & Exhibitors!,” downloaded from www.americanjail.org/education/
annual-training-conference/2014-sponsors-exhibitors-2, 16 January 2015.

173

	American Correctional Association, “Program Book: 144th Congress of Correction,” 15 – 20 August, 2014.

174

	Ibid.

175

	See note 138.

176

	American Correctional Association, “Planning Guide: ACA’s 2015 Winter Conference,” 6 – 11 February 2015.

177

	Ibid.

178

	See note 137.

179

	Ibid.

180

	See note 138.

181

	Ibid.

182

	National Sheriff Association, Sheriff (magazine), Volume 66, Number 2, March/April 2014.

184

	See note 176.

185

	See note 137.

186

	Aramark sponsored the general session: Ibid. 1,500 attendees: See note 11.

187

	Event sponsors: see note 137. Correct RX is a correctional pharmaceutical company: Correct RX Pharmacy Services, “Why Choose Correct Rx,” downloaded from correctrxpharmacy.
com/about-correct-rx/why-crx, 30 April 2015.

188

	AJA sponsors: American Jail Association, “The American Jail Association would like to thank our 2014 Sponsors & Exhibitors!,” downloaded from www.americanjail.org/education/
annual-training-conference/2014-sponsors-exhibitors-2, 16 January 2015. MultiView is a digital marketing company: MultiView, “We are MultiView,” downloaded from www.multiview.
com/about, 26 January 2015.

189

	Association of Women Executives in Corrections, “Boundaries, Barriers and Beyond” (program schedule), 26 – 28 September 2014.

190

	Corrections Technology Association, “15th Annual CTA Invitational,” 1 June 2014.

28

BUYING ACCESS 	

29

How Corporations Influence Decision Makers at Corrections Conferences, Trainings, and Meetings

191

	Corrections Technology Association, “Golf Tournament: 2013 Player Registration Form,” no date on source, downloaded from www.correctionstech.org/meeting/2013/2013_Golf.pdf,
downloaded on 8 July 2015.

192

	Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, “2014 Summer Training Conference,” 8 – 10 June 2014.

193

	See note 93.

194

	American Correctional Association, “2014 ACA Winter Conference – Tampa, FL” Facebook album, downloaded from www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152026829321966&set=
pb.26897531965.-2207520000.1404828771&type=3&theater, 26 March 2015.

195

	American Correctional Association, “2013 ACA Winter Conference – Houston, TX” Facebook album, downloaded from www.facebook.com/photo.
php?fbid=10151292436461966&set=a.10151292398431966.460354.26897531965&tvpe=3&theater, 26 March 2015.

196

	NSA: Eric Markowitz, “Baltimore Is Hosting America’s Largest Police Expo This Week and Military-Style Tanks and Grenade Launchers Are On Display,” International Business Times,
29 June 2015. AJA: see note 110, page 12.

197

	See note 140.

198

	National Sheriffs’ Association, “2014 Annual Conference & Exhibition” (exhibitor prospectus), 20 – 25 June 2014.

199

	See note 97.

200

	Five companies: See note 137. $5,000: See note 11. Note: these sponsors are considered “Grand Prize” sponsors by the ACA.

201

	See note 137.

202

	American Jail Association, “The American Jail Association would like to thank our 2014 Sponsors & Exhibitors!,” downloaded from www.americanjail.org/education/annual-trainingconference/2014-sponsors-exhibitors-2, 16 January 2015. Also see note 97.

203

	See notes 91 and 93.

204

	American Correctional Association, “143rd Congress of Correction – August 2013” Facebook album, downloaded from www.facebook.com/AmericanCorrectionalAssociation/
photos/a.10151293906156966.460486.26897531965/10151605716946966/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xap1%2Fv%2Ft1.09%2F1017000_10151605716946966_961465462_n.jpg%3Foh%3Dd0e50d02a3aea511bcfc07a18cfd8db3%26oe%3D5563394E%26__gda__%3D1432311062_
a7e325368249a59b3eba772316f67dbe&size=960%2C640&fbid=10151605716946966, 26 March 2015.

205

	American Correctional Association, “143rd Congress of Correction – August 2013” Facebook album, downloaded from www.facebook.com/AmericanCorrectionalAssociation/photos/a.
10151293906156966.460486.26897531965/10151605748531966/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xpa1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F1233634_101516057
48531966_250162060_n.jpg%3Foh%3Da2af056badc8a5a8d14a5818f5a5dc33%26oe%3D55631007&size=960%2C640&fbid=10151605748531966, 26 March 2015.

206

	GEO Group revenue in 2005 ($580 million): The GEO Group, Inc., “Form 10-K,” FY ended 3 January 2010. Also see GEO Group revenue in 2014 ($1.7 billion): The GEO Group, Inc., “Form
10-K,” FY ended 31 December 2014. Also see CCA revenue in 2005 ($1.2 billion): Corrections Corporation of America, “From 10-K,” FY ended 31 December 2009. Also see CCA revenue in
2014 ($1.6 billion): Corrections Corporation of America, “Form 10-K,” FY ended 31 December 2014.

207

	2010: Wexford Health Sources Incorporated, “History,” downloaded from web.archive.org/web/20100817182617/http://www.wexfordhealth.com/About-Us/History, downloaded on
18 May 2015, screen captured on 17 August 2010. 2015: Wexford Health Sources Incorporated, “History,” downloaded from www.wexfordhealth.com/About-Us/History, 18 May 2015.

208

	2011: Telmate, “History: Relationship,” downloaded from web.archive.org/web/20110222015027/http://telmate.com/about.html, downloaded on 18 May 2015, screen captured on
22 February 2015. 2015: Telmate, “About Us,” downloaded from www.telmate.com/about-us, 19 May 2015.

2040 S Street NW, 2nd Floor  |  Washington, DC 20009  |  InThePublicInterest.org
	 facebook.com/InThePublicInterest
	

@PubInterest

Any errors or omissions in this report are the sole responsibility of In The Public Interest. Thank you to Paul Ashton at Justice Policy
Institute for his insightful review of this report. Thanks also to Jordan Schneider for editorial assistance and to Terry Lutz for report design.
Cover image © Yunus85