The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including, but not limited to, those described under "Risk Factors" and included in other portions of this report.

OVERVIEW

We currently operate 67 facilities, including 47 facilities that we own, with a total design capacity of approximately 92,500 beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia. We also own two additional correctional facilities that we lease to third-party operators, one of which is currently vacant. We are the nation's largest owner of privatized correctional and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States, behind only the federal government and three states. Our size and experience provide us with significant credibility with our current and prospective customers, and enable us to generate economies of scale in purchasing power for food services, health care and other supplies and services we offer to our government partners.

REIT Conversion

In May 2012, we announced we were assessing the feasibility of a conversion to a real estate investment trust ("REIT") and had assembled a team of outside tax, legal and financial advisors to assist management and the board of directors in determining if we could structure our operations in such a way as to allow us to maintain the strategic alignment of our real estate and operations under a single publicly traded umbrella, qualify for status as a REIT and continue to provide correctional services through one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries ("TRSs"). As part of this assessment, we concluded that it would not be advisable to begin converting to a REIT structure without a private letter ruling ("PLR") from the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").

We filed a formal request for a PLR from the IRS in late July while we continued our own internal analysis of the feasibility and potential benefits of a REIT conversion. In February 2013, we received a favorable ruling from the IRS substantially in the form submitted, and announced that we had completed our analysis of the feasibility and potential benefits of a REIT conversion and had completed the reorganization of our corporate structure to begin operating as a REIT for federal income tax purposes effective January 1, 2013. We believe such a REIT conversion has the potential to maximize our ability to create stockholder value given the nature of our assets, help lower our cost of capital, draw a larger base of potential stockholders, provide greater flexibility to pursue growth opportunities, and create a more efficient operating structure.

Beginning January 1, 2013, we have provided correctional services and conducted other operations through one or more TRSs. A TRS is a subsidiary of a REIT that is subject to applicable corporate income tax and certain qualification requirements. Our use of TRSs enables us to continue to provide correctional services at facilities we own and at facilities owned by our government partners and to engage in certain other operations while complying with REIT qualification requirements. Our use of TRSs also allows our TRSs to retain income generated by their operations for reinvestment without the requirement of distributing those earnings.

As a REIT, we generally will not be subject to federal income taxes on our REIT income and gains that we distribute to our stockholders, including the income derived from providing prison bed capacity and correctional services to our government partners. However, even as a REIT, we will remain obligated to pay income taxes on earnings from our TRS operations.

To qualify and be taxed as a REIT, we will generally be required to annually distribute to our stockholders an amount equal to at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gains). Our REIT taxable income typically will not include income earned by our TRSs except to the extent the TRSs pay dividends to the REIT. Prior to the REIT conversion, we operated as a C corporation for federal income tax purposes. A REIT is not permitted to retain earnings and profits accumulated during the years it was taxed as a C corporation, and must make one or more distributions to stockholders that equal or exceed those accumulated amounts. To qualify for taxation as a REIT for the taxable year beginning January 1, 2013, we must distribute to our stockholders on or before December 31, 2013, our undistributed earnings and profits attributable to our pre-REIT taxable periods ending prior to January 1, 2013, which we intend to make as a one-time special distribution to our stockholders (the "E&P Distribution"). We currently expect the E&P Distribution will be composed of cash and shares of our common stock, at each stockholder's election, subject to a cap on the total amount of cash equal to 20% of the aggregate amount of the E&P Distribution. The balance of the E&P Distribution will be in the form of shares of our common stock. We cannot determine the number of shares that will be distributed to our stockholders until such time of the distribution.

We intend to increase our regular quarterly distribution in 2013 to help ensure that we qualify for taxation as a REIT. The amount, timing and frequency of future distributions, however, will be at the sole discretion of our Board of Directors and will be declared based upon various factors, many of which are beyond our control, including our financial condition and operating cash flows, the amount required to maintain qualification and taxation as a REIT and reduce any income and excise taxes that we otherwise would be required to pay, limitations on distributions in our existing and future debt instruments, our ability to utilize any net operating losses ("NOLs") to offset, in whole or in part, our REIT distribution requirements, the limitations on our ability to fund distributions using cash generated through our TRSs and other factors that our Board of Directors may deem relevant.

Our Business

We are compensated for providing correctional bed space and operating and managing prisons and correctional facilities at an inmate per diem rate based upon actual or minimum guaranteed occupancy levels. The significant expansion of the prison population in the United States has led to overcrowding in the federal and state prison systems, providing us with opportunities for growth. Federal, state, and local governments are constantly under budgetary constraints putting pressure on governments to control correctional budgets, including per diem rates our customers pay to us as well as pressure on appropriations for building new prison capacity. These pressures have been compounded by the recent economic downturn. Economic conditions remain very challenging, putting continued pressure on government budgets. All of our state partners have balanced budget requirements, which may force them to further reduce their expenses if their tax revenues, which typically lag the overall economy, do not meet their expectations. Actions to control their expenses could include reductions in inmate populations through early release programs, alternative sentencing, or inmate transfers from facilities managed by private operators to facilities operated by the state or other local jurisdictions. Further, certain

government partners have requested, and additional government partners could request, reductions in per diem rates or request that we forego prospective rate increases in the future as methods of addressing the budget shortfalls they may be experiencing. We believe we have been successful in working with our government partners to help them manage their correctional costs while minimizing the financial impact to us, and will continue to provide unique solutions to their correctional needs. We believe the long-term growth opportunities of our business remain very attractive as certain states consider efficiency and savings opportunities we can provide. Further, we expect insufficient bed development by our partners to result in future demand for additional bed capacity.

Governments continue to experience many significant spending demands which have constrained correctional budgets limiting their ability to expand existing facilities or construct new facilities. We believe the outsourcing of prison management services to private operators allows governments to manage increasing inmate populations while simultaneously controlling correctional costs and improving correctional services. We believe our customers discover that partnering with private operators to provide residential services to their inmates introduces competition to their prison system, resulting in improvements to the quality and cost of corrections services throughout their correctional system. Further, the use of facilities owned and managed by private operators allows governments to expand correctional capacity without incurring large capital commitments and allows them to avoid long-term pension obligations for their employees.

We also believe that having beds immediately available to our partners provides us with a distinct competitive advantage when bidding on new contracts. While we have been successful in winning contract awards to provide management services for facilities we do not own, and will continue to pursue such management contracts, we believe the most significant opportunities for growth are in providing our government partners with available beds within facilities we currently own or that we develop. We also believe that owning the facilities in which we provide management services enables us to more rapidly replace business lost compared with managed-only facilities, since we can offer the same beds to new and existing customers and, with customer consent, may have more flexibility in moving our existing inmate populations to facilities with available capacity. Our management contracts generally provide our customers with the right to terminate our management contracts at any time without cause.

As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately 14,000 unoccupied beds in inventory at facilities that had availability of 100 or more beds. We have staff throughout the organization actively engaged in marketing this available capacity to existing and prospective customers. Historically, we have been successful in substantially filling our inventory of available beds and the beds that we have constructed. Filling these available beds would provide substantial growth in revenues, cash flow, and earnings per share. However, we can provide no assurance that we will be able to fill our available beds.

Although the demand for prison beds in the short term has been affected by the severe budget challenges many of our customers currently face, these challenges put further pressure on our customers' ability to construct new prison beds of their own, which we believe could result in further reliance on the private sector for providing the capacity we believe our customers will need in the long term. We will continue to pursue build-to-suit opportunities like the 1,124-bed Jenkins Correctional Center we constructed for the state of Georgia in 2012, where the availability of our bed capacity is not in a location acceptable to a customer and where the returns meet our minimum threshold for new investment. Further, we will also continue to pursue purchases of state-owned facilities such as our recent purchase of the 1,798-bed Lake Erie Correctional Institution from the state of Ohio, which we believe represents the first

purchase of its kind (e.g. with a management contract) by a private corrections operator of a correctional facility from a state, which we believe signifies that states are looking for innovative solutions to their budgetary challenges. In the long-term, we would like to see continued and meaningful utilization of our remaining capacity and better visibility from our customers before we add any additional capacity on a speculative basis.

We also remain steadfast in our efforts to contain costs. Approximately 65% of our operating expenses consist of salaries and benefits. The turnover rate for correctional officers for our company, and for the corrections industry in general, remains high. Workers' compensation and medical benefits costs for our employees continue to increase primarily as a result of continued rising healthcare costs throughout the country. Reducing these staffing costs requires a long-term strategy to control such costs, and we continue to dedicate resources to enhance our benefits, provide training and career development opportunities to our staff and attract and retain quality personnel. Recognizing the challenges we faced as a result of the economic downturn, our efforts to contain costs were intensified, as we implemented a company-wide initiative to improve operating efficiencies, and established a framework for accelerating the process and ensuring continuous delivery over the long-term. We continue to generate favorable results from this initiative.

Through the combination of our initiatives to increase our revenues by taking advantage of our available beds as well as delivering new bed capacity through new facility construction and expansion opportunities, and our strategies to contain our operating expenses, we believe we will be able to maintain our competitive advantage and continue to improve the quality services we provide to our customers at an economical price, thereby producing value to our stockholders.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. As such, we are required to make certain estimates, judgments and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based upon the information available. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. A summary of our significant accounting policies is described in Note 2 to our audited financial statements. The significant accounting policies and estimates which we believe are the most critical to aid in fully understanding and evaluating our reported financial results include the following:

Asset impairments. As of December 31, 2012, we had $2.6 billion in long-lived assets, including $132.1 million in long-lived assets, excluding equipment, at seven currently idled facilities and $29.0 million invested in a construction project in Trousdale County, Tennessee at which we have suspended construction activities until we have greater clarity around the timing of future bed absorption by our customers. The impairment analyses for each of these facilities excluded the net book value of equipment, as a substantial portion of the equipment is easily transferrable to other Company-owned facilities without significant cost. From the date each facility became idle, the idled facilities incurred combined operating expenses of $6.4 million, $5.4 million, and $6.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010 respectively. The carrying values of these facilities as of December 31, 2012, were as follows (in millions):

                 Diamondback Correctional Facility     $  45,475
                 Huerfano County Correctional Center      20,602
                 Prairie Correctional Facility            20,503
                 Queensgate Correctional Facility         12,073
                 Shelby Training Center                    1,155
                 Otter Creek Correctional Center          25,685
                 Houston Educational Facility              6,657

                                                       $ 132,150

We evaluate the recoverability of the carrying values of our long-lived assets, other than goodwill, when events suggest that an impairment may have occurred. Such events primarily include, but are not limited to, the termination of a management contract or a significant decrease in inmate populations within a correctional facility we own or manage. Accordingly, we tested each of the aforementioned seven currently idled facilities for impairment when we were notified by the customer that they would no longer be utilizing such facility. We tested the facility under construction for impairment when we suspended construction of the facility.

We re-perform the impairment analyses on an annual basis for each of the idle facilities and for the suspended construction project, and evaluate on a quarterly basis market developments for the potential utilization of each of these facilities in order to identify events that may cause us to reconsider our most recent assumptions. Such events could include negotiations with a prospective customer for the utilization of an idle facility at terms significantly less favorable than used in our most recent impairment analysis, or changes in legislation surrounding a particular facility that could impact our ability to house certain types of inmates at such facility. Further, a substantial increase in the number of available beds at other facilities we own could lead to a deterioration in market conditions and cash flows that we might be able to obtain under a new management contract at our idle facilities. We have historically secured contracts with customers at existing facilities that were already operational, allowing us to move the existing population to other idle facilities. Although they are not frequently received, an unsolicited offer to purchase any of our idle facilities, or facilities under construction in the case of the Trousdale project, at amounts that are less than the carrying value could also cause us to reconsider the assumptions used in our most recent impairment analysis. We can provide no assurance that we will be able to secure management contracts to utilize our idle facilities, or that we will not incur impairment charges in the future.

The estimates of recoverability are initially based on projected undiscounted cash flows that are comparable to historical cash flows from management contracts at similar facilities to the idled facilities and sensitivity analyses that consider reductions to such cash flows. Our sensitivity analyses included reductions in projected cash flows by as much as half of the historical cash flows generated by the respective facility as well as prolonged periods of vacancies. In all cases except for our Shelby Training Center, the projected undiscounted cash flows in our analyses as of December 31, 2012, exceeded the carrying amounts of each facility by material amounts. The Shelby Training Center is a facility much smaller in size than almost all of our other facilities, and was designed as a secure juvenile correctional facility, which is atypical for our portfolio. In the case of the Shelby Training Center, our estimate of fair value took into consideration proposed purchase prices where third parties have expressed an interest in purchasing this facility, and estimates of the replacement cost of the facility based on our extensive experience in designing and constructing prison facilities. Our estimate of the fair value exceeded the carrying value of this facility.

In the case of the construction project in Trousdale County, Tennessee, we have suspended the construction until we have greater clarity around the timing of future bed absorption by our customers. The $29.0 million carrying amount includes $0.6 million in equipment and $15.2 million of pre-fabricated concrete cells that are constructed and being stored on this site but are transferable to other potential development projects we may commence in the future should we identify a more immediate use. We continually monitor and perform any routine maintenance on these pre-fabricated concrete cells to ensure they maintain their value. We incurred operating expenses of $0.1 million primarily for property insurance, property taxes, and repairs and maintenance for this project during 2012. Our impairment analysis of this project considers both the costs to complete the facility and an estimate of cash flows based on historical cash flows from management contracts at similar facilities. We continue to pursue prospects which would indicate the need for the ultimate completion of construction of the Trousdale County facility, and will continue to monitor developments that may impact our most recent assumptions. Although we are not currently considering a decision to abandon this site, a decision to transfer the pre-fabricated cells to another development project and to abandon the Trousdale County project site would cause us to reconsider our assumptions related to the recoverability of the land and site development costs incurred compared to a prospective sales price we might be able to obtain for the land.

Our evaluations also take into consideration our historical experience in securing new management contracts to utilize facilities that had been previously idled for periods comparable to or in excess of the periods our currently idle facilities have been idle. Such previously idle facilities are currently being operated under contracts that generate cash flows resulting in the recoverability of the net book value of the previously idled facilities by substantial amounts. Due to a variety of factors, the lead time to negotiate contracts with our federal and state partners to utilize idle bed capacity is generally lengthy which has historically resulted in periods of idleness similar to the ones we are currently experiencing at these facilities. As a result of our analyses, we determined each of these assets to have recoverable values in excess of the corresponding carrying values.

By their nature, these estimates contain uncertainties with respect to the extent and timing of the respective cash flows due to potential delays or material changes to historical terms and conditions in contracts with prospective customers that could impact the estimate of cash flows.
Notwithstanding the effects the current economy has had on our customers' demand for prison beds in the short term which has led to our decision to idle certain facilities, we believe the long-term trends favor an increase in the utilization of our correctional facilities and management services. This belief is also based on our experience in operating in recessionary environments and based on our experience in working with governmental agencies faced with significant budgetary challenges which is a primary contributing factor to the lack of appropriated funding to build new bed capacity by the federal and state governments with which we partner.

Goodwill impairments. As of December 31, 2012, we had $12.0 million of goodwill related to certain of our managed-only facilities. We evaluate the carrying value of goodwill during the fourth quarter of each year, in connection with our annual budgeting process, and whenever circumstances indicate the carrying value of goodwill may not be recoverable. Such circumstances primarily include, but are not limited to, the termination of a management contract or a significant decrease in inmate populations within a reporting unit.

In September 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") 2011-08 that gives companies the option to perform a qualitative assessment that may allow them to skip the annual two-step impairment test. Under the amendments in

ASU 2011-08, a company has the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary. If the two-step impairment test is required, we determine the fair value of a reporting unit using a collaboration of various common valuation techniques, including market multiples and discounted cash flows. We evaluated our goodwill for impairment in the fourth quarter by using the qualitative factors described in ASU 2011-08 and concluded that it was not more likely than not that the fair value of our reporting units was less than the carrying amounts thus allowing us to forego the two-step impairment test. We do not expect our estimates or assumptions used in this analysis to change in the near term such that they would trigger an impairment of goodwill, except for notification of a contract termination or non-renewal of a contract by a customer at a managed-only facility with goodwill. Each of these techniques requires considerable judgment and estimations which could change in the future.

Income taxes. Deferred income taxes reflect the available net operating losses and the net tax effect of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Realization of the future tax benefits related to deferred tax assets is dependent on many factors, including our past earnings history, expected future earnings, the character and jurisdiction of such earnings, unsettled circumstances that, if unfavorably resolved, would adversely affect utilization of our deferred tax assets, carryback and carryforward periods, and tax planning strategies that could potentially enhance the likelihood of realization of a deferred tax asset.

We have approximately $3.6 million in net operating losses applicable to various states that we expect to carry forward in future years to offset taxable income in such states. We have a valuation allowance of $0.6 million for the estimated amount of the net operating losses that will expire unused. In addition, we have $5.2 million of state tax credits applicable to various states that we expect to carry forward in future years to offset taxable income in such states. We have a $1.6 million valuation allowance related to state tax credits that are expected to expire unused. Although our estimate of future taxable income is based on current assumptions we believe to be reasonable, our assumptions may prove inaccurate and could change in the future, which could result in the expiration of additional net operating losses or credits. We would be required to establish a valuation allowance at such time that we no longer expected to utilize these net operating losses or credits, which could result in a material impact on our results of operations in the future. During 2013, as a result of our intention to convert to a REIT effective January 1, 2013 noted above, we expect to record a net tax benefit during 2013 of $125.0 million to $135.0 million for the revaluation of certain deferred tax assets and liabilities that we would no longer expect to realize as a REIT.

Self-funded insurance reserves. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, we had $33.9 million and $32.7 million, respectively, in accrued liabilities for employee health, workers' compensation, and automobile insurance claims. We are . . .