Texas Prison Bid'ness

Hutto: America's Family Prison, the short film by Lily Keber and Matthew Gossage, will screen tonight at the Taylor's downtown Howard Theatre at 7:00pm. The film will be part of a series sponsored by the East Williamson County Democrats. This months subject is immigration issues and will include Los Trabajadores, a film about day laborers in Austin. A discussion after the film will be moderated by Taylor resident Jose Orta.  More information at the Hutto blog.

Grits for Breakfast has been doing some excellent reporting on a proposed private county jail and detention center in Grayson County, in the far northeast part of Texas. County Judge Drue Bynum has been promoting the prison scheme as a way tax-payers can avoid having to foot the bill for a new jail.

Although the articles don't specifically mention it, I'm assuming that the facility would be financed using a Public Facilities Corporation, an increasingly common way of financing private prison proposals. PFCs are quasi-governmental agencies that can float bonds for "revenue-generating" projects without public approval. How does a jail generate revenue? By importing prisoners from other jurisdictions, most federal detainees from Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the U.S. Marshals or another state, possibly Idaho?

Of course, the down-side of these financing schemes is that if the prisoners fail to materialize, or the private prison operator poorly performs (remember Dickens County?) and the contracting agency pulls its prisoners, the county is left with millions of dollars in prison debt. In Willacy County, every resident caries a staggering $8,700 in debt for the county's multiple private detention centers financed this way.

A close look at Considering a Private Jail, Prison or Detention Center? might be a good idea for public officials and residents in Grayson County.

Grits has some good analysis: 

This is an unbelievably bad idea based on an economically flawed premise, that taxpayers won't "foot the bill for the jail."

Of course they will! For starters, he's asking the college to give some private company the land for free. But even more than that, for the company to pay its construction debt, the county must pay for its prisoners, which means it must pay the cost of housing the inmates (which it would have to pay anyway) PLUS the company's profits.

Whether the county or a private contractor operates the facility, it still must meet minimum standards set by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, so it won't be any cheaper to operate (except to the extent that a private company pays its employees less than deputies make - a marginal benefit at best in the scheme of things that's wiped out if the company takes a profit).

And of course, if the company can't find other entities willing to lease the beds at an inflated price, the county will be stuck with the full tab for space it doesn't need, since it will still need to operate a jail.

In addition to Grits coverage of the issue, local opposition to the jail scheme has popped up, including this No Jail blog. Folks in Grayson County opposing the prison should be heartened by recent defeats to private jail plans in neighboring Fannin County where local residents successfully defeated a private "faith-based" detention center and in Caldwell County where opposition to an Emerald Corrections detention center derailed the plan.

See Grits coverage on the topic:

Wall Street Links Economic Downturn to Private Prison Fortunes

Grayson County Judge Pushing Irresponsible Jail Building Scheme

Watch Your Assets, a new report from Texans for Public Justice and Grassroots Leadership on private prison oversight and effectiveness in Texas, contains some interesting data on the top private prison lobbyists in Texas, as listed here:

Texas’ Private-Prison Lobby in 2007

Lobbyist	Client	Min. Value of Contracts	Max. Value of Contracts
Lionel Aguirre	Geo Group	$200,000	*<$200,000
Ray Allen	Geo Group	$50,000	$100,000
Scott Gilmore	Geo Group	$50,000	$100,000
Jeffrey Heckler	Geo Group	$50,000	$100,000
M. Edward Lopez	Cornell Co’s	$50,000	$100,000
Demetrius McDaniel	CCA	$50,000	$100,000
Michelle Wittenburg	Geo Group	$50,000	$100,000
Lara Laneri Keel	CCA	$25,000	$50,000
Andrea McWilliams	CiviGenics	$25,000	$50,000
Dean McWilliams	CiviGenics	$25,000	$50,000
Allen Place	MTC	$25,000	$50,000
Michael Toomey	CCA	$25,000	$50,000
Bill Miller	Geo Group	$10,000	$25,000
April Seabaugh	CCA	$10,000	$25,000
Daniel B. Mays	CiviGenics	$0	$10,000
Robert Nathan	CiviGenics	$0	$10,000
Merita Zoga	CCA	$0	$10,000
Laurie Shanblum	CCA	$0	$0
	TOTAL:	$645,000	$1,130,000

*Contract reported as “$200,000 or more.”

Texas requires that lobbyists report a minimun and maximum contract value for a given period, hence the range in potential lobbying expenditures. Two quick things pop out at me from this chart.

First, Ray Allen, the former Texas representative from Grand Prarie who chaired the House Committee on Corrections, and his former chief of staff, Scott Gilmore, are two of the biggest private prison lobbyists in the state. Gilmore and Allen took heat several years ago for working as lobbyists even while Allen was still a state representative. Allen was a major privatization advocate while a state representative and both he and Gilmore lobbyied, while in office, for the National Correctional Industries Association - a group that advocates for prison labor and includes private prison corporations amongst its members.

Second, the troubled GEO Group spent the most on private prison lobbying in 2007 and actually upped its lobbying expenditures after scandals forced state hearings into private prison oversight. According to the report:

With its starring role in the scandal, Geo Group increased its Texas lobby spending tenfold, accounting for more than half of the lobby money that the industry spent in 2007.

Texas’ Private Prison Lobby

Company	Max. Value of Contracts In 2005	No. of Contracts In 2005	Max. Value of Contracts In 2007	No. of Contracts In 2007
Geo Group	$60,000	3	$625,000	6
CCA	$180,000	5	$235,000	6
CiviGenics	$120,000	4	$120,000	4
Cornell Co's	$0	0	$100,000	1
MTC	$50,000	1	$50,000	1
TOTALS:	$410,000	13	$1,130,000	18

During the height of the Coke County scandal, Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire (D-Houston) excoriated the GEO Group for unleashing the lobby to convince legislators that the state had overreached in shutting down that facility. “Now enters GEO with their paid lobbyists attempting to put a good face on this,” Whitmire told the Dallas Morning News. “I’m saying the corporation should back off. They've run a very poor facility that probably violates the youths’ civil rights,” he said. “Kids were stepping in their own feces. The sheets were such that a cat or dog wouldn't sleep on them."

We'll have more on private prison lobbying and influence in the coming weeks, and will keep you updated on developments from the private prison lobby in Texas.

An opportunity has arisen to bring the issue of the families detained at the T. Don Hutto to the caucuses coming up on March 4th. Here's how it works. On March 4th, after the polls close, people will gather at their respective precincts for caucuses. Anyone who attends the caucus can introduce resolutions and platform issues. Once a resolution is submitted, those who attend will debate the proposed resolution as well as vote. If the item is approved, it will be passed on to the County platform committee, which will discuss incorporating the proposal at the County level. At the County level, if approved, it will be forwarded on up to the State level.

More on the process is available at the blogs Grits for Breakfast (check out Grits for other prison-related resolutions) and Burnt Orange Report. Anyone can introduce a resolution at the caucuses, but it helps tremendously for the resolutions to be submitted in many precincts around the state. Below is a draft resolution for the Democratic caucuses that can be easily adjusted for the Republican caucuses by changing the party name.

Resolution re: Alternatives to Detention of Immigrant and Asylum-seeking Children

WHEREAS, The Texas portion of the border between the United States and Mexico comprises more than half of the nearly 2,000-mile boundary between the two countries; as a result of this proximity, the State of Texas is uniquely aware of the importance of border protection to the security of the nation as a whole and sensitive to the impact of immigration on the economic and social well-being of both countries; and

WHEREAS, The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security estimates the costs of detaining illegal immigrants to be $1.2 billion annually, and current research indicates that detaining immigrant and asylum-seeking families does not deter illegal immigration;

WHEREAS, Homeland Security recently re-opened the T. Don Hutto Residential Facility in Taylor, Texas, operated by private prison firm Corrections Corporation of America, for the purpose of detaining immigrant and asylum-seeking families who are awaiting immigration proceedings; Of the families detained, approximately half are children; and

WHEREAS, the United States house and senate committees on appropriations have each expressed concern about children of families detained at the center, particularly about reports that some children have been removed from their families and placed in separate facilities; and

WHEREAS, Children who have had no decisive role in their migration or flight should not be exposed to avoidable trauma; it is clearly within our means to provide these children and infants a safe environment without disruption to their families, nutrition, education, and exercise while their parents await immigration proceedings; and

WHEREAS, A valid alternative to detaining immigrant families would be to release and reunite these children and their parents but closely monitor them under the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, thereby reducing the emotional consequences to young children and the financial burden to taxpayers; Considering the apparent consequences of family detention, every possible alternative to family detention should be examined, considered, and exhausted before such action is taken; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, This Democratic Party caucus respectfully requests the Democratic Party of Texas to adopt and add to its platform that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security consider all alternatives to the detention of immigrant and asylum-seeking families with children; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Democratic Party of Texas forward official copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate of the United States Congress, all members of the Texas delegation to the congress, and the secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, with the request that this resolution be officially entered and adopted by the Democratic Party of the State of Texas.

Word has it that the resolution should be included at all Williamson County and Travis County Democratic caucus packets. We'll keep you updated on developments.