Based on the journalistic investigation developed by Esteban Cabrera for his book Privatization of Prisons in the United States: The Other Wall Street
Modern prison privatization in the United States did not emerge as an improvised response to prison overcrowding. According to the journalistic investigation developed by Esteban Cabrera for his book Privatization of Prisons in the United States: The Other Wall Street, the model evolved through a political, contractual, and corporate framework that transformed detention and correctional services into a multibillion-dollar industry financed through public funds.
Receive breaking news alerts
Immigration, New York, Dominican Republic and investigative news delivered directly to your phone and computer.
Free — unsubscribe anytime.
Esteban Cabrera’s investigation documents how this model took shape in 1983, when the former Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into arrangements that allowed Corrections Corporation of America, now known as CoreCivic, to participate in the management of immigration detention operations in Texas. What began as what was presented at the time as a temporary response evolved into a broader structural model that significantly influenced incarceration and detention policy in the United States.
During the following years, other corporations entered the sector, including what is now known as GEO Group, while the federal government and several states expanded contractual relationships with private operators to manage prisons, immigration detention centers, and services associated with detention operations. According to the investigation, this expansion accelerated alongside immigration and criminal justice reforms in the 1990s, which increased mandatory detention requirements and substantially expanded demand for detention capacity.
One of the mechanisms identified in this investigation as particularly controversial has been the use of intergovernmental agreements that allow the federal government to obtain detention capacity through local governmental entities, which may subsequently subcontract private companies. This structure has been the subject of public criticism and policy scrutiny regarding transparency and competitive oversight in contracts funded with public resources.
Over the decades, the model ceased to be peripheral. According to the analysis presented in Privatization of Prisons in the United States: The Other Wall Street, it became a significant component of the immigration detention system and the broader use of privately operated correctional facilities. By 2025, according to the author’s analysis and publicly available reporting reviewed as part of the broader investigation, a substantial portion of individuals in federal immigration custody were being held in for-profit operated facilities, while billions of dollars continued to flow to correctional corporations through long-term contractual arrangements.
The analysis also describes how the business model evolved beyond the direct administration of prisons. It now includes electronic monitoring, alternative supervision programs, contract structures with long-term financial protections, and pricing mechanisms under which each detained individual may represent a recurring source of revenue within the detention services framework.
Privatization of Prisons in the United States: The Other Wall Street argues that this system should not be viewed exclusively through the lens of public safety policy, but also as part of a broader economic structure in which detention functions as a highly monetized institutional market. That analysis further argues that private corporate profitability may be influenced by public policies that expand detention practices, while the human consequences of those policies may fall disproportionately on African American communities, Latino populations, and migrant communities.
The views, characterizations, and analytical conclusions expressed in this article are attributed to the journalistic findings, documentary analysis, and interpretive work of the cited author as presented in the referenced publication, and are offered as part of public-interest reporting and policy discussion. This publication does not assert as independently adjudicated fact any allegation of wrongdoing, illegality, or misconduct by any specific institution, corporation, public official, or private actor unless otherwise established through official findings, judicial determinations, or independently verified documentary evidence.
Comments (0)
Be the first to join the conversation.