Grassroots Leadership Special Report

GROUND ZERO
The Laredo Superjail
and the
No Action Alternative

by Nicholas Hudson
July 2006

Presented By

Grassroots Leadership Special Report
GROUND ZERO:
The Laredo Superjail and the No Action Alternative
By Nicholas Hudson
July 2006
Executive Summary
South Texas has become ground zero in the immigrant incarceration boom. There,
thousands of nonviolent border crossers are being placed behind bars where they absorb tax
dollars and create a perceived need for additional prison space.
The state of Texas is home to at least 9,500 proposed or recently built prison beds – all of which
are intended to house federal detainees from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and the United States Marshals Service (USMS).
The largest of these expansions is the proposed Laredo facility. In 2004, the USMS issued a
“request for proposal” (RFP) for a privately owned and operated detention center. This facility,
which has been dubbed the "Laredo superjail" by local media, would eventually hold 2,800
detainees, most of whom would be immigrants.
In July, 2005 the USMS issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) authored by the
Louis Berger Group for the US Marshals Service. The draft EIS is an incomplete document that
ignores both alternatives to detention expansion and the most recent data on the economic impact
of prisons and detention centers.
The EIS briefly explains, but does not recommend, a “no action alternative.” The no action
alternative, as defined in the draft EIS, is “not to proceed with the proposed action to award a
contract to house federal detainees in a Contractor-Owned/Contractor-Operated detention
facility.”
This report concludes that USMS prison expansion in or near the Laredo area is
unnecessary, and that the best course of action is the no action alternative. The data
analyzed in this report indicates immigration-related detention is disproportionately
represented compared to every other type of offense in the Texas South USMS district. In
2003, 53% of USMS detainees in Texas South were held on immigration charges. By 2004,
almost two-thirds (62%) of the individuals detained in Texas South by the US Marshals
were there on immigration-related charges.

1

The USMS maintains that there were no reasonable alternatives to expansion. This report
rejects that argument.1 The proposed Laredo facility would not be necessary with slight
changes in federal prosecution and enforcement patterns in the Southern District of Texas.
This report also addresses specific arguments in the draft EIS, including those regarding the
potential economic impacts of the proposed prison. A comprehensive analysis of the draft
EIS’s economic assessment reveals many problematic conclusions riddled with economic
fallacy, and an overwhelming reliance on unsupported evidence geared toward making the
case for the Laredo superjail. This report reaches a conclusion contrary to that of the draft
EIS. Relying on the most current and authoritative sources available, this report
determines that the Laredo superjail will most likely have no positive economic
impacts on any of the proposed sites, and that rural economies may even experience
detrimental impacts. The most recent and conclusive data shows that the construction
of large prison facilities can actually hinder long-term economic growth in some
communities.

Introduction
South Texas has become ground zero in the immigrant incarceration boom. Texas is home to at
least 9,500 proposed or recently built prison beds – all of which are intended to house federal
detainees from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, formerly the
Immigration and Naturalization Service) and the United States Marshals Service (USMS), “the
nation’s oldest and most versatile law enforcement agency.”2 Many of the existing or proposed
facilities are located in the rural towns of south and west Texas, where jail beds sometimes
exceed the number of residents.
The largest of these expansions is the USMS proposed Laredo facility. In 2004, the USMS
issued a “request for proposal” (RFP) for a privately owned and operated detention center. This
facility, which has been dubbed the "Laredo superjail" by local media, would eventually hold
2,800 detainees. According to the RFP issued by the USMS, the “superjail” must be located
within 50 miles of the new federal courthouse in Laredo, and will be privately built and operated
for profit.
To meet requirements set by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970, which
mandates a comprehensive analysis of federal actions that will significantly affect the
environment, the United States Marshals Service, in conjunction with an engineering firm, the
Louis Berger Group, issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in July 2005.3

Conclusions
This report first attempts to determine what need, if any, exists for the proposed Laredo superjail.
This includes an analysis of the no action alternative, the decision “not to proceed with the
proposed action to award a contract to house federal detainees in a Contractor1

Draft EIS, pg. II-1
According to the U.S. Marshals website, www.usmarshals.gov/history/oldest.htm, the United States Marshals
Services was formed as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, making it the oldest law enforcement agency in the
country.
3
EPA Website; NEPA of 1970; Draft EIS pg I-1-I3
2

2

Owned/Contractor-Operated detention facility,” and of reasonable actions outside the jurisdiction
of the USMS that might address the growing federal detainee population.
The recent drastic growth in nonviolent immigrant detainment in Southern Texas has fabricated a
perceived need for additional facilities to house immigrant detainees. The USMS maintains that
there were no reasonable alternatives to expansion, and this report rejects that argument.4 The
proposed Laredo facility would not be necessary with slight changes in federal prosecution and
enforcement patterns in the Southern District of Texas.
This report also addresses specific arguments in the draft EIS, including those regarding the
potential economic impacts of the proposed prison. On the economic front, this report reaches a
conclusion contrary to that of the draft EIS. A comprehensive analysis of the draft EIS’s
economic assessment reveals many problematic conclusions riddled with economic fallacy, and
an overwhelming reliance on unsupported evidence geared toward making the case for the
Laredo superjail. Relying on the most current and authoritative sources available, this analysis
determines that the Laredo superjail would most likely have no positive economic impacts on
any of the proposed sites, and that rural economies would likely experience detrimental impacts.
This report concludes that USMS prison expansion in or near the Laredo area is unnecessary
and that the best course of action is the no action alternative.

Background
According to the draft Environmental Impact Statement released in July 2005 by the USMS, the
federal detainee population under jurisdiction of the USMS rose dramatically from 3,000 in 1981
to more than 50,000 in 2005. Projections in the draft EIS indicate that number will increase to
more than 55,000 in Fiscal Year 2005 and over 62,000 in Fiscal Year 2006.
Five private prison corporations representing six proposed sites entered bids to operate the
Laredo superjail. They include Emerald Correctional Management (which handles LaSalle
County Regional Detention Center in Encinal, Texas), The GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut
Corrections),5 Corrections Corporation of America (CCA),6 Cornell Corrections and LCS
Corrections.7
The proposed superjail would be the fourth privately owned detention center within 50
miles of the recently constructed federal courthouse in Laredo. CCA currently operates two
facilities in Webb County: the Laredo Processing Center holds 350 people imprisoned through
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Webb County Detention Center has 500 beds
holding USMS detainees.8 A third facility, operated by Emerald Correctional Management, was

4

Draft EIS, pg. II-1
The GEO Group has presented two sites for development. Until 2003, The GEO Group was called Wackenhut
Corrections Corporation, and was a subsidiary of global security firm Wackenhut Corporation.
http://www.wcc-corrections.com/milestones.asp.
6
CCA is the largest private prison corporation in terms of market share
7
US Marshals Service, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Contractor Owned/ Contractor Operated
Detention Facility, Laredo, Texas Area, July 2005, pg. I-10
8
http://www.correctionscorp.com/facilitylist.cfm#
5

3

built on speculation in 2003 in neighboring LaSalle County.9 It currently houses USMS detainees
in its 540 beds.
South Texas, in particular, is home to a rapidly expanding detainee population. According to the
draft EIS,
"The USMS considers the need to house the growing number of federal detainees
within the Laredo, Texas area an especially important priority... Southwest Texas
in general and the Laredo, Texas area in particular represents a (sic) especially
challenging environment for the USMS."10
The EIS reports the average number of detainees in the District of South Texas grew from 505 in
1986 to 4,300 in 2004. In the federal courthouse city of Laredo, a subset of the District of South
Texas, the number similarly rose from 171 in 1992 to an average of 1,676 between October 2003
and April 2004. The USMS estimates the Laredo detainee population might have reached 2,300
by June 2004 and may be more than 3,200 by 2007.11

The Immigrant Incarceration Boom in Context
Immigrants are the fastest growing population behind federal bars today. In 1995 there were
10,147 immigrants in USMS custody, and by 2000 the number increased to 35,270. This drastic
increase was primarily a result of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA). It required the U.S. Attorney General to hire at least 6,500
border agents and support personnel between 1997 and 2001, and enhanced criminal penalties
for immigration offenses.12
Private prison corporations like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and The GEO
Group have been major benefactors of increases in immigrant detention. The USMS uses
private facilities to house a much larger percentage of its population than it did a decade ago.
Between 1994 and 2005 the percentage of USMS detainees housed in private prisons grew from
3% to 14%. (See Appendix: Table 1 and Figure 1)
Due to increasing government utilization of private detention facilities over the last ten years,
corporations like those mentioned above have made significant financial gains. CCA’s stock
price more than doubled between fiscal years 2002 and 2004,13 and other private prison
corporations have seen similar monetary gains.
Immigration enforcement tactics are becoming harsher. With increases in border agents and
changes in immigration referral and prosecution tactics in the Southern District of Texas, private
detention facilities like the one proposed for Laredo are filling up with nonviolent border
crossers. In 2005, the largest private prison in the country to house ICE detainees– a facility
with 1,000 beds, a third of the size of the proposed Laredo facility– opened its doors under a
9

Richard Williamson, “Lawsuit Over Texas Jail Gives Leading Opponent a Lead Role,” The Bond Buyer, Sept 29,
2003
10
Draft EIS, pg. I-7
11
Draft EIS, pg. I-7-I-8
12
http://www.gao.gov/pas/2001/d01250.pdf
13
Capitalizing on our Strengths: CCA 2004 Annual Report

4

$1.9 million, five-year government contract awarded to Correctional Services Corporation.14
This facility is located only 100 miles from Laredo in Pearsall, Texas.
Although there is no need for an additional detention space in the Laredo area, private
contractors are cashing in on prison expansion designed to house nonviolent border crossers.
USMS and DHS information show the wild growth of immigrant enforcement in South Texas.
The immigration-related incarceration boom is troubling, in part, because it indicates a massive
devotion of public resources dedicated to incarceration of nonviolent border-crossers.
USMS Data for the South Texas District: 2003-2004
The Composition of Texas South:
The Southern District comprises the counties of Aransas,
Austin, Bee, Brazoria, Brazos, Brooks, Calhoun, Cameron,
Chambers, Colorado, De Witt, Duval, Fayette, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Goliad, Grimes, Harris, Hidalgo, Jackson, Jim
Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, La Salle, Lavaca, Live
Oak, Madison, Matagorda, McMullen, Montgomery,
Nueces, Refugio, San Jacinto, San Patricio, Starr, Victoria,
Walker, Waller, Webb, Wharton, Willacy and Zapata.

Court for the Southern District is held in Houston,
Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Galveston, Laredo,
McAllen and Victoria.
15

Immigrant detention made up 90% of USMS detention growth from 2003 to 2004 in Texas
South, according to data provided by the U.S. Marshals Service. In 2004, immigrants made up
almost two-thirds of the total number of detainees that went USMS custody.
Federal immigrant detainees make up the largest group of accused offenders detained by the
USMS in the Southern District of Texas. Over 53% of all detainees in South Texas USMS
facilities in 2003 were accused of immigration related offenses. By 2004, immigrants
represented 62% of the South Texas USMS detention population. That year, 11,739 of the
18,820 people that went into Southern District of Texas’ United States Marshals Service
custody were detained awaiting immigration charges. (See Appendix: Tables 2 & 3, Figures
5 & 6)16
This data indicates that immigrant detainees were disproportionately represented when compared
to detainees for every other offense in the Texas South USMS district. In 2004, almost twothirds of the individuals detained in South Texas by the USMS were nonviolent offenders
held on immigration-related charges.

14

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/sna051705.htm, May 17, 2005; South Texas Detention Facility
Opening Today
15
The graphic (left), and information (right), is from the USMS website
16
2003 and 2004 USMS Data

5

Immigrants represented an astounding 89.7% of the increase in South Texas’s USMS
detention population between 2003 and 2004. There was a 33.5% increase in the total number
of South Texas USMS detainments between 2003 and 2004, and immigrant related detention was
responsible for nine out of ten new detainments.17 (See Figure 1)
Figure 1:
2003- 2004 USMS South Texas District
Change in Numbers of Detainees by Type of Offense
14000

Number of Detainees

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Immigration
Related
Offenses
2003

Violent
Offenses

2004

Material
Witnesses

Threats,
Court,
Other and
Fraud and Drug Related
Offenses
Procedural Public Safety Unknown
Property
and
Related
and
Offenses
Probation
Offenses
Weapons
Violations
Offenses
18

The breakdown of different immigration related charges is below. The largest group of
immigrant detainees were charged with “Illegal Entry,” Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code.
Pertaining to the South Texas district, 78% of immigration detainees in 2003 were under this
code. This percentage rose slightly to 83% the following year. (See Figure 2; See Appendix:
Table 4, Figures 7 & 8)
The astonishing one year increase in USMS detainment of immigrants presented Texas South
with a unique problem. Instead of thoroughly analyzing alternatives to detention of non-violent
immigrant offenders, the draft EIS prematurely concludes that the overflowing immigrant
detention problem could only reasonably be solved with further prison construction.

17
18

2003 and 2004 USMS Data
2003 and 2004 USMS Data

6

Figure 2:
Immigrant Detention Breakdown
2003-2004
12000

9658

Number of Detainees

10000

8000

6000

5786

4000

2000

928
27

0

Illegal Entry
2003

2004

1220

760

856

5

False Citizenship

Smuggling Aliens

Immigration

Offense

Increase in Recommendations to Prosecute: TRAC Report
The Transaction Resources Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), an independent, nonpartisan data
gathering, data research and data distribution organization associated with Syracuse University,
released a 2005 report on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The report found that
the DHS recommended prosecution of 65% more immigration cases in 2004 than it had in 2003.
This upward trend in immigrant prosecution continued into the first six months of 2005.19
Nationally, most federal judicial districts had increased the number of prosecutions over the past
two years, but "the sharpest spike occurred in the Southern District of Texas (Houston) where
recommendations for the prosecution of these cases jumped by a startling 345%, increasing from
4,062 to 18,092 in just one year." The Laredo area is in the South Texas District where these
massive jumps in illegal immigration and referral rates occurred. (See Figure 8)20

19

Transaction Resources Access Clearinghouse Report on Immigration Enforcement. Released August 2005. Found
online at http://trac.syr.edu/tracins/latest/131
20
TRAC Report. August 2005

7

Figure 3:

21

The prosecution of immigrant violators rose 82% nationally between 2003 and 2004, but in
Texas South it increased an almost unbelievable 4,000% -- forty times the national average and
wildly disproportionate to every other USMS district on the Mexican border. Data from the
TRAC report shows that the most common single charge in 2004 was section 8 US 1325-Illegal Entry. The report finds:
"Convictions in the district where the section of illegal entry statute law was the
lead charge went from 304 in FY 2003 to 13,778 in FY 2004. This jump means
that in the most recent complete fiscal year that 8 USC 1325 convictions made
up an overwhelming majority of all immigration matters in the district."22
The reason for increased referrals is not easily discerned. It might appear at first glance that
major changes in immigration enforcement and prosecution are a result of the current
administration’s “get-tough” policy. However, when comparing the Southern Texas District’s
massive increase to the national changes between 2003 and 2004, a somewhat different picture
emerges. “Excluding Texas South, referrals for prosecution went up only 8%, prosecutions went
up 16%, and convictions actually fell, down by 4%.” Texas South was responsible for 84% of
the national increase in immigrant prosecution, and 90% of immigrant referrals for prosecution
in the United States between 2003 and 2004. 23

21

TRAC Report. August 2005
TRAC Report. August 2005
23
TRAC Report. August 2005
22

8

Because the Department of Homeland Security, which absorbed the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) in 2003, was created in the wake of September 11, their primary
objective was widely viewed by the American people as combating terrorism. However, as data
provided by both the USMS and the DHS indicate, terrorism-related cases were responsible for
less than one third of one percent of all the incarceration in 2004, and made up only a tiny
fraction of DHS prosecution and referrals. Nonviolent immigrants, not terrorists, suffered as a
result of DHS policy.
In addition to harsher enforcement inflating the USMS immigrant detainee population,
prosecution and referral rates nationally have experienced significant growth. And, like data
provided by the USMS, the TRAC report confirms that the situation in Southern Texas is unique.
Referral and prosecution rates for immigration offenses, like immigrant detention rates, have
risen to amazing levels.
Summary
The USMS detains a disproportionate number of immigrants in Texas South for illegal entry
relative to all other crimes, compared to every other part of the country. The primary causes of
recent national increases in immigrant detention are public policy measures in the last two
decades, but recent legislation cannot explain the unique situation in the Southern district of
Texas. In South Texas, thousands of nonviolent border crossers, at a higher rate than any other
district in the nation, are being tossed behind bars where they absorb tax dollars and create a
heightened perceived need for additional detention beds.
The USMS proposed “solution” to the overflowing immigrant detainee population is, in reality,
not a solution at all. It promises that thousands more nonviolent border crossers will be detained
at taxpayer expense. If prosecution and referral rates in the Southern District of Texas were
closer to those in the rest of the country, the demand for additional prison space there would not
be so high.
It is reasonable to believe that Texas South can match the nation’s standard of discretion
regarding the use of prosecution and enforcement tactics on nonviolent offenders, thus
eliminating misperceived needs for prison space. There need to be reasonable changes in how the
Southern District of Texas handles enforcement and prosecution in order to eliminate the
perceived need for additional federal prisons in that area. With a common sense approach to the
situation that does not pander to the needs of the for-profit private prison corporations, Texas
South and the area of Laredo in particular can manage quite well without any more prisons.

The Economy of a Superjail
There is some debate as to whether or how the proposed Laredo superjail would affect local
economies if built. Referring to the Laredo superjail’s construction, the draft EIS states, “…the
proposed action would have a beneficial impact upon the local and regional economy.”
But the EIS provides minimal evidence for its economic position, and its conjectures regarding
economic impacts are difficult to support. Ten short summaries of property value studies are
used to justify a large portion of the EIS’s economic argument.
9

The EIS maintains that property values would experience little impact as a result of the proposed
facility. It goes further, though, and states that certain impacts resulting from the nature of the
construction and operation of the proposed facility would result in benefits for surrounding
economies. The EIS asserts that money will be spent in the host community, and that new jobs
will be created at the proposed site.
Many rural towns have been devastated in the last 30 years by a flight of manufacturing jobs to
countries with lower labor costs and working standards, and the disappearance of small farms.
As a result, fewer public trade schools, universities, and community colleges have been built in
rural areas than in booming urban and suburban communities. In an effort to create jobs and save
their dwindling communities, many rural leaders have lobbied for the construction of prisons and
detention centers in their districts.
Economics in the draft Environmental Impact Statement
The EIS argues that the construction and operation of the proposed superjail would benefit the
surrounding regions economically. It bases this conclusion on the mere assertion that, due to
construction, job availability, and material purchases, the superjail would employ people and
utilize resources from the region. During both operational phases, the EIS argues, labor
expenditures, and expenditures on utility services, food, and other necessities would benefit the
regional economy.
The authors of the draft EIS present ten small summaries of property value studies, conducted
between 1978 and 1995 in their economic analysis These property value study summaries,
problematic and slanted, constitute almost all of the draft EIS’s economic research. Paramount to
the problems in the summaries, it is important to note that property values alone do not constitute
a valid economic assessment.
Literature and Data on Prison Expansion and Economics
Data from the most authoritative research on prison expansion and economic growth shows that,
contrary to the draft EIS’s claim, prison construction has not brought about promised economic
benefits. Contrary to widely publicized opinion, prisons do not help lower unemployment, they
do not raise median family income, and they do not help rural economies grow in the long run.
In fact, the data shows:
• Construction and operation of large prisons do not contribute to long-term local economic
growth.
• Contracts and jobs associated with prison construction generally do not go to local residents.
One of the assumptions underlying positive economic impacts is that goods and services will be
purchased locally. This is often not the case, with major contracts and their profits, along with
profits garnered by public subsidies for the prisons, going to large firms located out-of-state.
• Rural communities without prisons perform as well or better economically than rural
communities with prisons on a range of measures including employment, job growth, average
household wages, numbers of businesses, retail sales, number of housing units, and median value
of housing units.
10

A bibliography of studies done on prison economic impacts and critical reviews of the existing
relevant literature are available in the Appendix. None of these studies or reviews are mentioned
in the draft EIS.
The Hooks Carceral Expansion Report and Encinal, Texas resolutions
One such study is The Prison Industry: Carceral Expansion and Employment in U.S. Counties
1969-1994 led by Washington State University Professor Gregory Hooks.
The Hooks study found that prison expansion near rural communities actually harmed their longterm economic growth.24 According to the study, prisons consume many public resources, but
do not create an attractive environment for important public projects such as community colleges
and public universities. Prisons have a negative multiplier effect on rural economies, by
consuming irretrievable public resources and impeding economic growth in the future.
Additionally, urban areas experienced no beneficial long-term economic impacts as a result of
prison expansion.25
An important aspect of the Hooks report, conducted by four sociologists, is that investigators had
no apparent stake in the prison industry. Until the sociological study, there was no rigorous test
of the assumption that prisons helped economic growth.
The Hooks report played an important role in two strong resolutions, one from the City of
Encinal, Texas and the other from the Encinal Economic Development Corporation (EEDC).
These resolutions are noteworthy because they each come from separate groups with an
objective motive for performing economic analysis. Both resolutions reject previous economic
analyses and opinions indicating that prisons have a beneficial impact on rural economies.
Encinal, a rural city in the southwest corner of La Salle County, borders one of the proposed sites
for the USMS superjail. It also currently hosts the 500-bed LaSalle County Regional Detention
Center, another facility where USMS detainees are held. In its resolution from August 22, 2005,
the EEDC stood firmly against any further prison expansion in or near the city of Encinal.
The EEDC relied on the Hooks report and first-hand experience in drafting its resolution. It
examined the existing facility near Encinal, where USMS detainees are held, and discovered that
the existing facility had “failed to provide any demonstrative positive economic impact to the
City of Encinal.”
The EEDC had concerns about the extremely large size of the proposed federal for-profit facility.
Its population, said the resolution, would outnumber the residents of their small rural community,
and might “cast the image of Encinal as a prison town.” It appears that the EEDC’s concerns
were justified. Using census data from 2000, which the EIS relies on, this report determined that
the proposed facility could reasonably be expected to inflate the population of the Encinal area
by over 480% with prison-related individuals, most of them being people in prison.26

24

Hooks, Gregory, et al, “The Prison Industry: Carceral Expansion and Employment in U.S. Counties 1969-1994”
Hooks, Gregory, et al, “The Prison Industry: Carceral Expansion and Employment in U.S. Counties 1969-1994”
26
Encinal Economic Development Corporation, August 22, 2005 Resolution 08-22-05
25

11

The Encinal Economic Development Corporation ended its resolution by presenting a final
statement of vehement opposition to “...any other prison or detention facility in or near Encinal.”
The EEDC realized that Encinal’s economy, like economies in other rural areas, would not
benefit, and would most likely suffer from the construction and operation of the proposed Laredo
superjail.
Property Values
The Property Values appendix of the draft EIS, mentioned previously, contains numerous serious
flaws. None of the studies found that prisons help economic development, although two of the
ten summaries did indicate that prisons do not depress property values. The studies are at best
inconclusive, and in many cases contradict claims made by the authors of the draft EIS. The
summaries of each property value study in the draft EIS contain several consistent errors:
• The draft EIS equates “no serious negative effects” to no depression in property values.27 This
equation is problematic because it does not allow impedance or stagnation of property values to
be considered a “serious negative effect.” Below is a situation where a future EIS would see “no
serious negative effects” using the flawed standards employed by the current EIS.
• Property values were analyzed based on speculation of construction of a prison in some of the
studies,28 and on surveys and questionnaires in others.29 Speculation and guesswork should not
be mistaken for or confused with empirical evidence, where economies are examined before and
after prison construction.
• The studies do not reach any consistent conclusion. While some of the studies notice negative
economic impacts,30 others note positive economic impacts,31 and some find no economic
impacts at all.32
• Most importantly, an analysis of property values does not provide a valid, comprehensive
assessment of economic impacts. As noted above, the most authoritative research on the
economic impact of prison expansion demonstrates that prison construction harms long-term
economic growth in many communities.
For example, suppose that a couple has owned a home for five years in a rural area on the
outskirts of Laredo, and the value of their home has risen steadily at a rate of five percent each
year. Then, the proposed superjail is built in Webb County. As a result, the value of the couple’s
home and all of the properties surrounding the new jail stagnate. Because of the new prison, the
value of their home does not increase for another fifteen years. Although the value of the home
and the properties in the surrounding community were seriously and negatively affected by the
construction of a multi-million dollar prison, the USMS would examine the area and conclude
that there were “no negative effects” on local property values in its final environmental impact
statement. The USMS would assume no responsibility for impeding or depressing the growth
27

Draft EIS Appendix C Annotated Bibliography; pg. C-1: Hewes, 1985; pg. C-3, Smykla, 1984
Draft EIS Appendix C Annotated Bibliography; pg. C-3: Resource Assessment, 1986; Grasskamp, 1983,
29
Draft EIS Appendix C Annotated Bibliography; pg. C-2: Maxim, 1983
30
Draft EIS Appendix C Annotated Bibliography; pg. C-3: Smykla, 1984
31
Draft EIS Appendix C Annotated Bibliography; pg. C-6 & C-7: Roger & Haimes, 1987; Pg. C-1 Stanley, 1978
32
Draft EIS Appendix C Annotated Bibliography; pg. C-1: Hewes, 1985
28

12

rate of property values in the area because the value of the couple’s home did not actually
decline.
This inadequate “no serious negative effects” standard is employed by ten of the twelve
summaries of property value analyses in the EIS. Only two of the ten studies are summarized
without with this problematic method of equation.
At best, the summaries of studies included in the property values appendix are
inconclusive, and it is unfair to Laredo and disingenuous to the public to present the data
in any other manner. Because of the muddied waters surrounding the property values section of
the EIS, it is important to ask tough questions about how the Laredo superjail will impact its host
community. It is in part because of the comprehensive Hooks study, other recent economic
studies, the local Encinal resolutions, and the lack of adequate information presented in the EIS
that this report recommends the No Action Alternative.
“Communities Will See the Money”
The draft Environmental Impact Statement argues that “Beneficial impacts on the region’s
economy would…be realized by virtue of the facility’s construction and operating budget.”
However, spending money on a large private project does not automatically benefit the economy
of the surrounding area.
The idea that money spent on a private project will positively affect the economy of the
surrounding region is a prevalent one. For-profit prison advocates and rural leaders are eager to
claim private superjails, like the one in consideration in Webb and LaSalle counties, will spend a
considerable amount of money on goods and services in the community surrounding the
operational site.
Private prison contracts are awarded to corporations though, not to cities or counties.
Accordingly, local elected officials and community leaders have little say as to how the money
will be spent. In addition, local utility companies are required to bear the cost of expanding
utility systems such as water, wastewater and electricity to accommodate private prisons. These
costly expansions obligate the use of many local resources that are not paid for by private prison
facilities.33
Communities often have little input on the management and construction expenditures of private
prisons. One aspect of this lack of control arises from the specialized needs of detention
facilities. Prisons, especially large prisons, require highly specialized orders for items such as
prefabricated cells to fill the needs of maintaining significant detainee populations. These special
orders are often made through preexisting relationships with large-scale manufacturers based
outside of the region under construction. Small, local manufacturers have a difficult time
meeting the demands of large prison construction projects.34

33

Wiley, J. K. (2004, July 17). Study: Hosting prisons could harm small towns' economic prospects. Associated
Press.
34
Wiley, J. K. (2004, July 17). Study: Hosting prisons could harm small towns' economic prospects. Associated
Press.

13

Summary
Research literature on prison expansion and economic growth shows that prison construction
does not bring about positive economic benefits. Prisons do not help lower unemployment, they
do not raise median family income, and they do not help rural economies grow in the long run.
After a review of the literature on the subject, a critical assessment of the property value studies
sited in the draft EIS, and a close look at the two resolutions from the city of Encinal, this report
concludes that the regional economy of each proposed rural site will most likely be adversely
affected if the proposed facility is constructed, and that urban sites would most likely experience
no beneficial economic impacts.

Objectivity and the EIS: Parting Ways
Obvious failures in the economic portion of the draft EIS raise serious doubts about the
objectivity of the remaining portion of the statement, and the public must be accordingly
scrupulous in its reading of the report. The draft EIS appears to be more of a persuasive
document than a valid assessment of environmental impacts. The USMS can and must do better.
The trust of the public, consisting of our faith and reliance on the government’s purported
attempt to objectively inform the public, is continually undermined by disingenuous framings of
policies and issues.
One is forced to ask why the EIS, a document issued by our federal government, contains so
many obvious problems. What is clear is that the USMS has a vested interest in resolving what it
sees as a “prison expansion problem” as fast as possible, regardless of the means. There is little
incentive for the agency to help bring detention rates under control. In addition, if the USMS
acknowledges there are problems in the current criminal justice system, it must assume at least
partial responsibility for helping solve them. It is easier for the USMS to ignore the problem,
though, and simply build more prisons: to treat the symptoms of the criminal justice system’s
failures, with the construction of new prisons, is easier than addressing the failures themselves.
South Texans need to ask obvious questions when considering whether they will tolerate prison
expansion in their backyards. Are there reasonable alternatives to construction of a superjail? To
what extent is political pressure influencing prison expansion? Who benefits politically and
financially from building new facilities in South Texas? And which groups benefit from putting
so many resources into immigrant prosecution and detention?
Conclusion
Prison expansion is only one quick-fix to a systemic problem of over-incarceration, and the
Southern District of Texas will not see any resolution to its problem of a perpetually expanding
federal prison population until there is a change in the system’s approach to detention and
prosecution. Texas South is only the most extreme example of a national problem concerning
immigrant incarceration, prosecution, and detention. While the USMS may not be able to change
national public policy, its individual districts have substantial control over how they deal with
immigration problems. It can encourage decreases in the incarceration, detention and prosecution
of immigrant detainees.

14

Rural economies, where financial security is needed most of all, will continue to be undermined
by prison construction, and nonviolent immigrant detainees will continue to inflate the federal
prison population unless some reasonable changes take place. The draft Environmental Impact
Statement fails to make an adequate analysis of the regional economic impacts the proposed
facility would likely have. Evidence suggests the Laredo superjail would most likely have longterm, adverse effects on rural economies, and it would provide no economic benefits to urban
economies. If the proposed facility is built, any short-term gains in jobs and materials purchases
will likely be countered by a decline in property-growth rates, the consumption of public
resources, and an unattractive environment for valuable community projects.
It is reasonable to expect that the South Texas USMS district can fall in line with the rest of the
nation in its rate of detention and incarceration of immigrants. The need for another detainment
facility has not simply been inflated -- it has been fabricated. Increased border enforcement
efforts and public policy maneuvers have led to the systematic detainment, prosecution and
incarceration of nonviolent immigrants entering the United States. The need for another federal
prison in the Southern District of Texas is at best an illusion.
Based on the evidence, this report strongly endorses the no action alternative.

15

Appendix
Bibliography of Prison Economic Impact Studies
Besser, Terry L. and Hanson, Margaret M. 2003. “The Development of Last Resort: The Impact
of State Prisons on Small Town Economics”. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meetings of
the Rural Sociological Society. July, Montreal, Canada. In Press. Contact Terry Besser, Ph.D. ,
Iowa State University, for a copy.
Farrigan, Tracey L. and Amy K. Glasmeier. 2003. “The Economic Impacts of the Prison
Development boom on Persistently Poor Rural Places”. In Press. Contact Tracey Farrigan, Ph.
D. Pennsylvania State University, for a copy.
Hooks, Gregory, Clayton Mosher, Thomas Rotolo, & Linda Lobao. 2004. “The Prison Industry:
Carceral Expansion and Employment in U.S. Counties, 1969-1994”. Social Science Quarterly
85(1): 37-57.
King, Ryan S., Marc Mauer &Tracy Huling. 2004. “An analysis of the Economics of Prison
Siting in Rural Communities.” Criminology and Public Policy, American Society of
Criminology, Volume 3, Number 3, July: PP 453-480.
Mattera, Phil, & Khan, Mafruza. 2001. “Jail Breaks: Economic Development Subsidies Given to
Private Prisons”.
McShane, M.D., Williams, F.P. & Wagoner, C.P. 1992. “Prison Impact studies: Some
Comments on Methodological Rigor”. Crime & Delinquency, 38, (1), 105-120.
Tootle, Deborah M. 2004. “The Role of Prisons in Rural Development: Do They Contribute to
Local Economies?” In Press. Contact Deborah M. Tootle, Ph.D, Louisiana State University, for
a copy.

16

Table 1: Increased reliance by the USMS on Private Detention 1994-2005
Prisoners under the Custodial Jurisdiction of the U.S. Marshals Service, by
Type of Facility, September 30, 1994-2005
Fiscal
Year
1994

Total
18,231

Federal
6,219

%
34.11%

Type of Facility
State
&
3
Local
%
Private
11,416 62.62%
512

1995

22,193

7,542

33.98%

13,454

60.62%

1,115

5.02%

77

1996

23,964

7,701

32.14%

14,922

62.27%

1,324

5.52%

103

1997

27,017

8,179

30.27%

17,029

63.03%

1,696

6.28%

101

1998

31,470

8,914

28.33%

20,307

64.53%

2,128

6.76%

107

1999

33,649

9,451

28.09%

21,010

62.44%

3,034

9.02%

110

2000

35,720

10,454

29.27%

21,402

59.92%

3,719

10.41%

121

2001

38,950

10,819

27.78%

23,734

60.93%

4,429

11.37%

126

2002

43,408

10,020

23.08%

26,831

61.81%

5,696

13.12%

431

2003

47,151

10,474

22.21%

29,617

62.81%

6,524

13.84%

536

2004

52,820

10,720

20.30%

33,300

63.04%

8,244

15.61%

556

2005

54,766

12,086

22.07%

34,357

62.73%

7,758

14.17%

565

1

1

4

%
2.81%

Other
63

%

0.35%
0.35%
0.43%
0.37%
0.34%
0.33%
0.34%
0.32%
0.99%
1.14%
1.05%
1.03%

35

Figure 4: Increased reliance by the USMS on Private Detention 1994-2005
Percentage of Prisoner Under Custodial Jurisdiction of the USMS, by Type of Facility,
September 30, 1994-2005
70.00%

60.00%

Percentage of Prisoners

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Fiscal Year
Federal

35

State & Local

Private

Other

US DOJ Statistic: http://www.usdoj.gov/ofdt/statistics.htm

17

Table 2: Classification of Each Charge for USMS Data:
Immigration Related Offenses:
Violent Offenses:

Illegal Entry, False Citizenship, Smuggling Aliens, Immigration
Homicide, Kidnapping a Minor, Kidnapping an Adult, Kidnapping an Adult for
Ransom, Kidnapping, Sexual Assault, Robbery of a Banking Institution, Robbery,
Aggravated Assault of a Police Officer with a Weapon, Assault, Threatening Federal
Protectees, Terrorist Threats, Crimes Against Person
Material Witnesses:
Material Witness
Fraud and Property Related Offenses: Extortion- Threat to Injure a Person, Burglary of a Banking Institution, Larceny from
Mail, Larceny from Interest Shipment, Theft of Government Property, Postal Larceny,
Larceny, Stolen Vehicle, Forgery, Counterfeiting, Mail Fraud, Credit Card Fraud,
False Statement- Fraud, Fraud by Wire, Fraud, Postal Embezzlement, Embezzlement
of Banking Institution, Transportation of Stolen Property, Possession of Stolen
Property, Property Damage, Concealment of Stolen Property
Drug Related Offenses:
Distribution of a Hallucinogen, Hallucinogen, Selling Heroin, Smuggling Heroin,
Possession of Heroin, Heroin, Selling Cocaine, Smuggling Cocaine, Cocaine
Possession, Cocaine, Synthetic Narcotic, Selling Marijuana, Smuggling Marijuana,
Possession of Marijuana, Producing Marijuana, Marijuana, Manufacture of
Amphetamine, Selling Amphetamine, Possessing Amphetamine, Amphetamine,
Possession of a Barbituate, Dangerous Drugs
Court, Proc. and Probation Violations: Bail, Contempt of Court, Obstruction of Justice, Probation Violation, Conditional
Related Violation, Failure to Appear, Obstruction, Receiving a Bribe, Offering a Bribe,
Bribery
Threats, Public Safety & Weapons:
Carrying Prohibited Weapon, Possession of Weapon, Threat to Bomb, Weapon
Offense, Harassing Communication, Driving Under the Influence Liquor, Traffic
Offense, Health
Other and Unknown Offenses:
Unknown, Conservation of Animals, Making a False Report, Failure to Report a
Crime, Obstructing Police, Refusing to Aid and Officer, Dissuading a Witness,
Sabotage, Cruelty Toward a Child, Neglect of a Child, Nonsupport of Parent,
Transportation of a Female for an Immoral Purpose, Smuggle Contraband, Smuggle to
Avoid Paying Duty, Smuggling, Tax Revenue, Money Laundering, Property Crimes,
Escape, Flight to Avoid Prosecution, Harboring a Fugitive

Table 3: USMS Incarceration by Similar Offenses
Detainee Population by Similar Offenses- TX South

2003

2004

Immigration Related Offenses
Violent Offenses
Material Witnesses
Fraud and Property Related Offenses
Drug Related Offenses
Court, Procedural and Probation Violations
Threats, Public Safety and Weapons Offenses
Other and Unknown Offenses
Total

7501
55
1294
363
2224
2228
199
229
14093

11739
51
1516
375
2173
2512
247
207
18820

18

Figure 5: USMS Incarceration by Similar Offenses 2003
2003 Southern District
USMS Detainees by Offense
Other and Unknown Offenses
2%
229 Detainees
Threats, Public Safety and
Weapons Offenses 1%
199 Detainees
Court, Procedural and
Probation Violations 16%,
2228 Detainees

Immigration
Related Offenses
53%
7501 Detainees

Drug Related Offenses 16%
2224 Detainees

Fraud and Property Related
Offenses 3%
363 Detainees
Material Witnesses 9%
1294 Detainees
Violent Offenses .39%
55 Detainees

36

Figure 6: USMS Incarceration by Similar Offenses 2004
2004 Southern District
USMS Detainees by Offense
Other and Unknown Offenses
1%
207 Detainees
Threats, Public Safety and
Weapons Offenses 1%
247 Detainees
Court, Procedural and
Probation Violations 13%
2512 Detainees

Drug Related Offenses 12%
2173 Detainees

Fraud and Property Related
Offenses 2%
375 Detainees

Immigration
Related Offenses
63%
11739 Detainees

Material Witnesses 8%
1516 Detainees
Violent Offenses .27%
51 Detainees

36

2003 and 2004 USMS Data

19

37

Table 4: USMS Immigration Breakdown by Offense: 2003 &2004
Immigration-Related Violations by Offense
Illegal Entry
False Citizenship
Smuggling Aliens
Immigration
Total

Figure 7:

2003
5786
27
928
760
7501

2004
9658
5
1220
856
11739

Figure 8:
Immigration Breakdown by Offense:
2004

Immigration Breakdown by Offense:
2003

Immigration
7%

Immigration
10%

Smuggling Aliens
10%
False Citizenship
0.04%

Smuggling Aliens
12%
False Citizenship
0.36%

Illegal Entry
78%

37

Illegal Entry
83%

2003 and 2004 USMS Data

20

Bibliography
Alm, A. L. (1988, January/‌February). NEPA: Past, present, and future. EPA Journal. Retrieved April
18, 2006, from Environmental Protection Agency Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/‌history/‌topics/‌nepa/‌01.htm
The Berger Group. (2005). Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://www.louisberger.com/
Capitalizing on our strengths: CCA 2004 annual report. (2004). Retrieved April 19, 2006, from
Corrections Corporation of America Web site:
http://www.shareholder.com/‌cxw/‌downloads/‌cca2004ar.pdf
Correctional Management. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2006, from Emerald Companies Web site:
http://www.drugresult.com/‌emerald/‌CorrectionalMgmt.Aspx
Corrections Corporation of America. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2006, from
http://www.correctionscorp.com/
Fix, M. E., & Passel, J. S. (2001, August 2). U.S. Immigration at the Beginning of the 21st Century.
Urban Institute. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://www.urban.org/‌url.cfm?ID=900417
The GEO Group, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://www.wcc-corrections.com/
History, genealogy, and education. (2006, January 20). INS history, genealogy, and education.
Retrieved April 18, 2006, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Web site:
http://uscis.gov/‌graphics/‌aboutus/‌history/‌index.htm
Hooks, G., Mosher, C., Rotolo, T., & Lobao, L. (2004, March). The prison industry: Carceral
expansion and employment in U.S. counties 1969-1994. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 3757.
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of Sept. 30, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104208, 110 Stat. 3009 555-725 (1996), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/‌cgibin/‌getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ208.104.pdf.
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of Dec. 17, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat.
2845 98-106 (LEXIS NEXIS Congressional).

21

McCafferty, T. J. (n.d.). Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Vol.
68 No. 184). Department of Justice U.S. Marshals Service. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from
GPO Access database (DocID:fr23se03-25): http://www.epa.gov/‌fedrgstr/‌EPAIMPACT/‌2003/‌September/‌Day-23/‌i24170.htm
Partners: Detention management program. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2006, from United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Web site: http://www.ice.gov/‌partners/‌dro/‌dmp.htm
A Resolution Opposing the Expansion of the La Salle County Regional Detention Facility or the
Creation of any other Prison or Detention Facility in or near Encinal, Encinal Economic
Development Corporation Resolution. 08-22-05. August 22, 2005
Scalia, J., & Litras, M. (2002, August). Immigration offenders in the federal criminal justice system,
2000. In National archive of criminal justice data. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (NCJ No.
191745) Retrieved April 18, 2006, from NCJ database:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/‌bjs/‌abstract/‌iofcjs00.htm
TRAC INS report. (2005). Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from
Syracuse University Web site: http://www.trac.syr.edu/‌tracins/‌latest/‌current/
U.S. Department of Justice United States Marshals Service, & The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (2005,
July). Proposed contractor-owned/‌ contractor-operated detention facility Laredo, Texas
area: Draft environmental impact statement. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Immigration Policy. (1998). Retrieved April 18, 2006, from Close Up Foundation Web site:
http://www.closeup.org/‌immigrat.htm#overview
Vendors Federal Business Opportunities. (2003, May 22). S -- Private Detention Services, Laredo,
Texas [MS-03-R-0018]. Message posted to
http://www.fedbizopps.gov//spg/‌DOJ/‌USMS/‌HQ002/‌MS-03-R-0018/‌SynopsisP.html
Wiley, J. K. (2004, July 17). Study: Hosting prisons could harm small towns’ economic prospects.
Associated Press.

22

www.grassrootsleadership.org

The original document was Union Printed
in Charlotte North Carolina