1
Facility Question and Answers / Re: anybody ever hear of Abraxas?
« on: November 22, 2010, 01:06:48 PM »
Also, actually, Cornell and GEO merged see http://http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100419006086/en/GEO-Group-Cornell-Companies-Announce-685-Million for this:
The GEO Group and Cornell Companies Announce $685 Million Merger
Creates $1.5 Billion Revenue Diversified Provider of Essential Government Services
Combined Company Well Positioned to Capitalize on Growing Global Demand for Correctional, Detention and Behavioral Health Services
Also found this an interesting statement from Cornell Co.'s 2009 Annual Report:
Our smallest division, Abraxas Youth & Family Services, faced particular challenges during 2009 due to budget cuts across the country, and in particular with our two largest markets: Pennsylvania and Illinois. This created intense pressure on all providers of juvenile justice and substance abuse treatment programs.
These pressures compelled us to reconfigure programs and consolidate capacity at several smaller facilities. Perhaps the one bright spot in this segment is that our unrelenting focus on operating quality has enabled us to increase market share from less resilient competitors who have either exited the market or “cut corners” as they try to survive.
Though Abraxas did not achieve the goals that we established at the beginning of the year, we did make progress as demonstrated by increasing average contract occupancy over 2009 to 85.9% from 80.6% during 2008. Also, despite the funding cuts, average residential per diems increased by approximately 3% which illustrates our ability to shift our programs to a more attractive mix. We finished 2009 with many empty beds in this segment, but for 2010 we expect to continue to gradually increase occupancy and favorable mix so that the division can continue to generate cash for Cornell, despite the continuing budget pressures facing the segment.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100430/ ... z162D6z4Oc
I guess I'm just green and naive to this topic, but shouldn't the goal of these facilities be to get the residents out and on their feet, not to increase occupancy? (I know: this was written for shareholders, who are interested in their dollar return not in the societal implications of their investments). Still, there is an apparent conflict of interest here.
The GEO Group and Cornell Companies Announce $685 Million Merger
Creates $1.5 Billion Revenue Diversified Provider of Essential Government Services
Combined Company Well Positioned to Capitalize on Growing Global Demand for Correctional, Detention and Behavioral Health Services
Also found this an interesting statement from Cornell Co.'s 2009 Annual Report:
Our smallest division, Abraxas Youth & Family Services, faced particular challenges during 2009 due to budget cuts across the country, and in particular with our two largest markets: Pennsylvania and Illinois. This created intense pressure on all providers of juvenile justice and substance abuse treatment programs.
These pressures compelled us to reconfigure programs and consolidate capacity at several smaller facilities. Perhaps the one bright spot in this segment is that our unrelenting focus on operating quality has enabled us to increase market share from less resilient competitors who have either exited the market or “cut corners” as they try to survive.
Though Abraxas did not achieve the goals that we established at the beginning of the year, we did make progress as demonstrated by increasing average contract occupancy over 2009 to 85.9% from 80.6% during 2008. Also, despite the funding cuts, average residential per diems increased by approximately 3% which illustrates our ability to shift our programs to a more attractive mix. We finished 2009 with many empty beds in this segment, but for 2010 we expect to continue to gradually increase occupancy and favorable mix so that the division can continue to generate cash for Cornell, despite the continuing budget pressures facing the segment.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100430/ ... z162D6z4Oc
I guess I'm just green and naive to this topic, but shouldn't the goal of these facilities be to get the residents out and on their feet, not to increase occupancy? (I know: this was written for shareholders, who are interested in their dollar return not in the societal implications of their investments). Still, there is an apparent conflict of interest here.