Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Q1 2024 CoreCivic Incorporated Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I'd now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Mike Grant, Managing Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for joining us today. Participating on today's call are Damon Hininger, CoreCivic's President and Chief Executive Officer; and David Garfinkle, our Chief Financial Officer. We are also joined here in the room by our Vice President of Finance, Brian Hammonds. On this call, we will discuss financial results for the first quarter of 2024 as well as updated financial guidance for the 2024 year. We'll also discuss developments with our government partners and provide you with other general business updates. During today's call, our remarks, including our answers to your questions will include forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act. Our actual results or trends may differ materially as a result of a variety of factors, including those identified in our first quarter 2024 earnings release issued after market yesterday as well as in our Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K reports. You are also cautioned that any forward-looking statements reflect management's current views only and that the company undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements in the future. Management will also discuss certain non-GAAP metrics. A reconciliation of the most comparable GAAP measurement is provided in the corresponding earnings release and included in the company's quarterly supplemental financial data report posted on the Investors page of the company's website at corecivic.com. With that, it is my pleasure to turn the call over to our President and CEO, Damon Hininger.

Thank you, Mike. Good morning, and thank you for joining us for our first quarter 2024 earnings call. On today's call, I will provide details of our first quarter financial performance. I will also discuss with you our latest operational results and update you on the latest developments with our government partners and our capital allocation strategy. Following my remarks, I will turn the call over to our CFO, Dave Garfinkle, who will provide greater detail on our financial results and on our updated 2024 financial guidance. Dave will also provide an update on a very active quarter for our ongoing capital structure initiatives, including details regarding our recently completed debt refinancing. I'll start with a high-level overview of our first quarter financial results. In the first quarter, we generated revenue of just over $500 million, a 9% increase compared with the prior year quarter. This is our highest level of quarterly revenue achieved since the third quarter of 2019, 18 quarters ago. And it is also our highest rate of year-over-year revenue growth since the same quarter of 2019. The composition of our revenue growth also speaks to the current strength of our business as well as to the level of our partners' needs and their trust in us. During this quarter, we experienced revenue growth from all 3 of our partner groups: federal; state; and local governments. I will provide more color on each later in this call. For the first quarter of 2024, regenerated normalized funds from operation, or FFO, [ of ] $52.6 million or $0.46 per share compared to $38.9 million or $0.34 per share in the first quarter of 2023, representing a per share increase of 35%. The increase in FFO was driven by the higher federal, state and local populations combined with expense…

Thank you, Damon, and good morning, everyone. In the first quarter of 2024, we reported GAAP net income of $0.08 per share compared with $0.11 per share in the prior year quarter. Excluding special items, adjusted EPS during the first quarter of 2024 was $0.25 compared with $0.13 per share in the prior year quarter. Special items in the first quarter included $27.2 million of expenses associated with debt repayments and refinancing transactions and a small gain on sale of real estate assets. Normalized FFO per share was $0.46 during the first quarter of 2024 compared with $0.34 in the prior year quarter, an increase of 35%. Adjusted EBITDA was $89.5 million during the first quarter of 2024 compared with $73.7 million in the prior year quarter, an increase of $15.8 million or 21%. The increase in adjusted EBITDA resulted from higher occupancy from federal, state and local populations and the continued normalization of our operating expense structure, partially offset by an increase in G&A expenses. These factors, along with a lower normalized effective income tax rate in the current year quarter also contributed to the increase in adjusted EPS and normalized FFO per share. The lower normalized effective income tax rate resulted from an income tax benefit associated with stock-based compensation vesting, contributing to a favorable impact of $0.02 per share. While this tax consequence occurs every year, the benefit was amplified by a rise in our stock price since the grant date, resulting in a higher tax deduction. In our Safety segment, our largest segment, facility net operating income increased $18.4 million or 21% to $107.6 million in the current year quarter from $89.3 million in the prior year quarter. The increase in NOI was driven by an increase in occupancy in this segment from 70.9% to 76.1%,…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Joe Gomes of NOBLE Capital.

Damon and David, congrats on the quarter. So I wanted to start, you talked a little bit about on the ICE populations from the overall level. Just maybe give us a little more color and detail on what you saw in your population, especially, as you mentioned, somewhat coming down at the end of the first quarter into the second quarter? They rebounded at -- what kind of rebound have you seen in them since they've bottomed out?

Yes, sir. So this is Damon. Let me give you a couple of numbers. So as of yesterday, our systemwide population was 10,310. So 10,310 was our systemwide population as of yesterday. In April, let me give you 2 numbers. In April -- on April 1, we were at 9,772, and then on April 20, and I'd say the 20th because that's the last publicly available report for ICE nationwide populations. So on April 20, our system population was 9,208. So coming into the month of April, we are almost at 10,000. We win as low as 9,200 on April 20 and as of today, or I should say yesterday, we were at 10,310. So as you know, and as I said in my comments, again, the last publicly available report for ICE was 34,600, or 34,500. And -- so we don't know what the new numbers are nationally. But our sense is if our populations are going up, likely the nationwide number is going up too.

And just looking through the supplemental, and if I look at the Safety segment, the revenue per compensated mandate is now $102 which is up from the $90 level a couple of years ago. How much more increase do you think you can get out of that? Are you seeing any pushback from your government partners on the steady increase in the revenue per compensated mandate?

Yes. Good question and I'll probably take team with Dave on this a little bit. But I'd say a couple of things. One is, as you know and we've talked a lot about last couple of years, I mean we have needed to do some big investments in our employees. So we're really thankful for -- especially our state partners through the appropriation process through various state legislatures around the country to get increases in salaries and then turn off to get reimbursed through per diem increases with our contracts, either through the renewal process or new contracts. Generally -- this is not part of your question. But generally, the labor market feels like it's stabilized, not only just on the vacancy rate going down dramatically, but also the need for major adjustments in [ towers ]. It feels like we're stabilized and someone getting into a kind of normal year-over-year increase on that front. And then as you know, on our federal contracts, wage terminations are required by contract, which in turn, we have to pay those rates with our employees under those contracts. So if those wages go up and go up regardless, if they go up modestly or meaningfully, we get reimbursed dollar for dollar through our contracts. And so -- and also that's a great feature in those contracts. So if those wages continue to go up, which typically -- those are a little slower to see adjustments year-over-year versus our state contracts. So we could see some meaningful increases in salaries through the wage termination process here next couple of years and in turn, also get reimbursed for that. And now that could adjust our pretty -- in a pretty meaningful way. So that's a long way of saying, yes, maybe not so much on the state business. But I think maybe on the federal business, the next year or 2 as wage terminations continue to kind of keep up with the labor market data, we could see adjustments there. But what would you add to that, Dave?

Yes. I think '22 was a decent year. '23 was a better year. So I'm speaking specifically for our state government partners where per diems typically go up July 1, in connection with the renewal of their fiscal years and so '23 was a good year. And as Damon mentioned, we were recovering a lot of the salaries that we had been providing to our staff. Our customers -- [ a ] unique industry, our customers do what we do, so they experience what we do. So they saw the demand for their salaries increasing within the public sector system. So those conversations, they're never easy. I mean, trying to get budget dollars appropriated is always difficult. But they were at least a little more sympathetic when they understood the labor market. So I think we've been really good at getting those per diem increases the past couple of years, where most states are in legislative session right now. So hard to say what is going to happen July 1 of '24. But we continue to have those conversations, particularly in states where we didn't necessarily get a per diem increase that fully compensated us for the wages that we provided in the past year or 2.

Okay. And you mentioned [ Cal ] City has expired here now. Maybe give us a little more update or color on what you're doing there. Who you think could be a potential partner there and taking that facility if you can come to some type of agreements there? Who are your target customers, I guess, for that facility?

Yes. Thank you for that question. On [ Cal ] City, I mean, we think it's a great solution for -- even though the lease ran out, I think it could be a good solution long-term or even midterm for the state as their needs changes. Obviously, their populations got impacted probably more dramatically than any other state with COVID and the population is going down. So also, we'll continue to keep the lines of communication open with the state. But as we've said before, being in Southern California, being in the Southwest, knowing that ICE and their needs are very fluid and very dynamic and obviously a lot of discussion going on, both nationally and regionally in that part of the country about border security and the needs for ICE and maybe more decision capacity. We think that'll be a natural fit for that agency if and when they need more capacity period, not just in that part of the country. But anything you'd add to that, Dave?

I think we've mentioned before, both ICE and Marshals have used that facility before California was in it. So they're familiar with it. They've toured it. So we think it would be a good solution for them as well.

Okay. And then, on the monitoring, the ISAP contract comes up in about, I guess, 15 months here. Any color you can provide on what your thoughts are on the monitoring ISAP contract? And if you're -- that's something that you're going to go back in and look to potentially win?

Yes, absolutely. So that -- as you know, that contract is up for rebid. I think the contract expires July of next year in 2025. Obviously, we've got the capability. Our Community division has gotten monitoring underneath that. We've been doing it for decades within that division. So we've got the capability and the qualification for it. And probably more importantly, I mean, no one has been working with ICE longer than we have. So obviously, we know that agency really well. We've done some really complex and large solutions for them over the years. [ I ] think about our South Texas facility and Dilley, Texas could be one example. So something of that size and that complexity. It's right in our wheelhouse because we've done that many times over the years with ICE. So we're getting ourselves prepared. Also we participated in that procurement in years past. And again, I think we're well qualified now just with the relationship with the agency, but also working through complex projects. And also, I think we've got a really good track record of being very innovative but showing great outcomes. So as they think about kind of the future of that program and maybe some changes they want relative to not only outcomes, but performance metrics and show that is a very effective program. We think we bring a lot to the table. But anything you'd add to that, David?

The only thing I'd add there was that reporting and release management RFI last year. I think we don't know what it's going to look like, whether they want the same services that are currently provided under ISAP or whether they're going to expand it like they contemplated under the RRM RFI. We have not seen an RFP and then -- it's not come out yet. I expect that would come out sometime during the second half of 2024. So they're probably still compiling the data from the responses to that RFI. And it could -- it depends on how much money gets appropriated toward that type of monitoring case management program as well. And there could be multiple vendors, both profit and non-profit depending on what it looks like. So we're standing ready to see what that RFP looks like that we'd expect in the second half of this year and we'll respond accordingly.

And one last one for me, I'll get back in queue. Anything new on state and local opportunities?

Yes, great question. So as you know, we've been on a great run. I mean, we go into the last half of last year. I mean a lot of great new relationships. Wyoming comes to mind, Hinds County comes to mind, Harris County comes to mind. And it's probably important to note, I know there's always a question about kind of public available procurement. A lot of these opportunities that we have secured here in the last 6, 8, 10 months have been through just shoe-leather and engaging these partners, understand their complex issues and challenges they have to lead to these opportunities. So we're excited about having a lot of these new partners now on the roster with CoreCivic. But I guess I'd point to a couple of things. We look obviously closely at prison forecasts next 5 years. We've talked about some of those numbers here in the next 5 years. But if you look at our existing customer base, just the last 2 years in population growth, and if you exclude the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which we don't work with them now on the safety side, we just work with them a little bit on the community side and also the state of California, that collective portfolio of state customers we've worked with, they've increased by 30,000 in [indiscernible] in the last 2 years. And that's, again, existing state partners working with CoreCivic. So you look at a state like Georgia, they've gone up 3,600. You look at a state of Florida. They're kind of 5,000 in the last 2 years. So states are dealing with a lot of challenges, continue to deal with not only the issues coming out of COVID and maybe facilities they took off-line because of staffing issues or capital or physical plan issues. They're looking at the next 3 to 5 years seeing some increases in population too, especially if there's been some changes within the state legislatures on [ sensing ] reform. So that's a long way of saying. Yes, we're hearing a lot of engagement from our partners -- our state partners on needs that they may have not only just in the near term, again, not just with physical plan or labor issues but also growth here in the next couple of years. But anything you'd add to that, Dave?

No, I think you covered it, Damon.

Our next question comes from the line of M Marin of Zacks.

So I was hoping to get a little bit more color on the Cal City facility. So on the supplement I think it says that the facility was built in 1999. Has there been any spending on upgrades? And so in other words, where I'm going with this question is, do you see this as a long-term solution for ICE because of the [ location ] and the relationship you have? Would you -- in order to start a new contract, would you need to do any kind of upgrades to the facility? Or do you think it's ready to go for a new contract?

Yes. Thank you for that question. That's a good one. I would say there's probably some modest improvement we would need to make to it. And again, we've been working with ICE for 40 years. So we know kind of their MO on how they think about physical [ plant ] and maybe some modifications you want. So for example, those modifications could be additional office space for government staff, lawyers that are helping support the residents and their legal cases. There are some cases where we do courtrooms. We actually have physical space for judges and court staff to come on site. Obviously, the rule has changed here in the last couple of years on that front with COVID. And so a lot of that stuff is being done virtually even with the pandemic behind us. So it could be the case where it's a little bit of office courtroom but also maybe space for technology where they can do virtual hearings or whatnot, so pretty modest investment. But again, we've been doing this for a long time for ICE, so we kind of know what they would want. And obviously, we could be flexible if they've got some very unique needs. They've got a certain location. And to give you another example, it could be and they want more of a very intensive medical component for chronic care or maybe some infirmary beds. Those could be some adjustments to make into the medical unit. But anything you'd add to that, Dave?

Yes. I mean, California was just using it. They just left the facility in March. So obviously, everything -- all the systems are up to date. So I don't have to put any CapEx in for those things. I think like Damon said, it depends on who the user would be. And every user is a little unique in their needs and Damon outlined the details for ICE. So I estimate -- it's hard to tell without a real opportunity in front of us. But it could range from very minimal to, I don't know, $15 million, $20 million, may be higher than that. But I think that'd be a lot depending on the customer.

But it also [indiscernible] to me from what you're saying that if some of those modifications were made, it would also have a positive impact on your per diems on the facility. Is that the right way to think about it?

Absolutely. Yes. I mean we build that into our pricing model and make sure that we get an adequate return for any CapEx that we'd have to put into it.

Our next question comes from the line of James Godman of StoneX Group Inc.

Yes. This is actually Ben Briggs from StoneX. First of all, congratulations on the quarter. Congratulations on being able to raise the guidance and really a strong showing here. So most of my questions, frankly, got addressed. But one that I wanted to dive in a little bit on is, obviously, a lot of the federal government increase in revenue came from ICE and that was driven by some of the immigration issues we've seen in the changes in policy during the year. You also saw a pretty significant increase in state and local revenue. I know that some of that was driven by new contracts that you won over the course of the last year or so. But could you give any insight into, if there's any macro drivers that's driving that increased demand by states and localities? And is any of that additional revenue due to increased headcount at contracts that already existed prior to these new ones being added during the year?

Thank you for that question. Make sure I understand kind of the [ jist ] your question. So you just -- some of the macro drivers that are driving state populations. Is that kind of [ jist ] of your conversation, what's driving that?

Precisely, yes.

Got you, very good. Well, so I'd point to 2 things. The first is kind of everything related to COVID. So what we saw during COVID on the state populations is that they had the usual behavior of discharges, people getting into sentence so they would get released from prison. But people coming into prison, that slowed down pretty dramatically because people that were maybe arrested of a crime and were held in a local jail, I say, the city or county facility, their cases were not getting adjudicated because the courts were closed during the pandemic. And so what we saw kind of '20, '21, '22 and even a little bit into '23 is that jail populations were increasing dramatically around the country. In fact, I think in the last quarter, or maybe 2 quarters ago, I shared the metric of a 2-year trend of 22% increase in jail populations nationally. So that's every city or county that operates the jail. And that's -- we think that's a record. We don't think we've ever seen a percentage increase like that in a short period of time. And again, what the data indicated, but also what we heard anecdotally is that courts were closed. People were arrested. Cases were not get adjudicated. So populations were swelling at the local level, which meant that they were not getting ultimately convicted in a sense of a crime once the case got adjudicated and go into a prison. So now what we're seeing is courts are back to natural kind of regular order. People are going through the process, getting the cases adjudicated. And now the population is coming pretty dramatically, pretty quickly into the state level. What the states had done during COVID since populations were down, they took either units. In…

Yes. No, I think at a macro level, state populations, if you back out the facility in Oklahoma, the transition from one that we operated to one that we leased, if you back that one out, our populations were up a few percent from Q1 '23 to Q1 '24. And then going back to the discussion we had earlier about wage increases and getting reimbursed through per diem increases. It's a combination of those that's driving the revenue. But certainly, as Damon mentioned more thoroughly, the demand and the challenges that our state customers are facing are getting more intense.

That's incredibly helpful. So one follow-up question to that is that as these states and localities are utilizing and have demand for more and more space -- I know that historically, the U.S. Marshals Service has used some -- in addition to you guys, has used some state and local space to house their daily needs. Are -- states localities are going to be faced with the situation where they don't have enough space to lease to the U.S. Marshals Service and could that create opportunities for you guys in the future?

Yes. That's a great question. And I think the short answer is absolutely. I mean we're hearing a little bit of that not only anecdotally, but also a little bit in our system where maybe a jurisdiction -- yes, it's either out of space. Another part of it is that, I mean, the federal government to their credit and have seen this for ICE too. I mean, they're raising their bar on operational standards and requirements. And so we're hearing through our -- through those 2 partners, Marshals Service and ICE is that some local agencies not only don't have capacity for all the reasons we just talked about, but also maybe they've kind of thrown up their hands [ and say ] there's just no way we can comply with the standards that these agencies are requiring at the cities or counties that they house population. So I think kind of both of those factors are drawing or driving a little bit of opportunity and demand for us to use capacity in our system because we were at as a badge of honor. These requirements and standards that we have to comply with, we've been doing that for years. And at the end of the day, we think that's the right thing to do to improve the quality within our facilities. But also we're very supportive of on-site monitors, contract monitors and whatnot. And I know a lot of our local jurisdictions are not too keen to that type of oversight. So yes, I think that's exactly right.

That's very helpful. And then last one for me is just regarding labor. I know that temporary labor usage has been an issue. It seems like it's less of an issue now as you guys are getting more staffed up. Would you say that we're back to a run rate as far as temporary labor is concerned? And would you consider yourself fully staffed as far as permanent labor is concerned? Or is there potentially a little bit more hiring to do?

Good question. Again, I'll [ tag team ] a little bit Dave on this one. I would say we're close, on the second part of your question, not quite there. But we really have gotten pretty darn close on permanent staff. So yes, we've seen a lot of improvement on that in probably the last 12 to 18 months. On the temporary staff, we've had said in our remarks, I mean, a lot of improvement on upfront, but probably not quite -- keep honest with you David, probably not quite where we were pre-COVID.

Yes. There's a few facilities where we're still deploying temporary staff, but certainly not the magnitude it was throughout 2023 or even '22. And we still do continue to incur some of those temporary incentives for that staff. So I would expect, as the year goes by, we will have higher staffing levels but less reliance on temporary staff. So it's a continuation of that trend that we've been seeing over the past several quarters.

Our next question comes from the line of Kirk Ludtke of Imperial Capital.

Demon, David, Mike, congratulations on the quarter. Congratulations on the refi. Just a follow-up -- a couple of follow-ups on California City. You mentioned that this used to be a nice Marshals facility. What -- and that the current -- or the population, the ICE population was 34,500, it's probably higher now. At what level -- what national ICE population would you think ICE would have to be before they would reopen an idle facility?

Yes, good question. I think it's probably -- well, the short answer is probably going to be higher than it is today. So as you know, again, they've got the funding for the rest of this year, 41,500. That is also a meaningful increase on last year's funding which was 34,000. Now, last year, as you know, they were able to go to elevated number on population just because they did some reprogramming that was mentioned by the [ sector ] home security last summer, but nonetheless, very notable that there are at 41,500 today. It's our sense the populations -- again, before this recent dip, populations were at 38,000 to 39,000. We got a sense, as you know, not just -- really not with us. But I think other jurisdictions, they do have -- they did have some guarantee minimum beds that were not occupied. And so once you factor kind of actual population with maybe some beds that are under contract but currently not utilized for other reasons because I think they always have a little bit of slack in the system, they're pretty much at full utilization at that kind of 41,000. So I think the shorter answer is they're probably going to need additional funding. And that could happen again possibly this year. Obviously, we don't know if anything that's underway. But again, in years past, they have done some reprogramming for specific needs on the Southwest border. And then obviously, we'll be watching closely what's happen going into the next fiscal year for funding numbers. I guess I will also note -- I mean, there is a very broad bipartisan support on a higher population number. And the reason I say that it was a supplemental that also didn't pass the house but did pass us the Senate in February, had a number of, I think, 50,000 or 55,000 beds. And so there is support for additional capacity. But obviously, we'll just have to watch closely what happens for the rest of this year going to next year. But anything you add to that, Dave?

Yes. I still think there is a chance. We have one facility where they could consolidate populations from public sector facilities and move it to a private sector facility. And that would not require new funding because it's really -- they're already using that funding at multiple facilities. So I think there's a chance that happens this year. It's not in our guidance, but something we continue to discuss with ICE and continue to monitor.

That's a good point. I probably should highlight that because -- a little bit back to the other question about the Marshals Service. I mean, ICE again, is still in that same pressure. We're local jurisdictions for whatever reason, just can't support the agency's mission either with capacity and/or standards. So I guess that is an important caveat that -- I mean it could be the case. And we've seen this in years past where they say, "Hey, let's just consolidate a population at a facility and back out and vacate local facilities that maybe are very fragmented and very diverse, regionally located in long distances from the agency's office."

That's helpful. I guess the other option -- maybe to the California might want it for their own purposes. And I know the population there is coming down. What is the likelihood of them having in the state of California?

Well, again, they were there for a decade. And we know they really, really like the facility. I mean it was the newest -- one of the newest, most modern facilities in the state and continues to be. And we did some pretty meaningful improvements over the physical plant during a period of time. So I think based on not only just their populations, but maybe some of the uniqueness they want relative to the environment, with programs and other services. I mean, obviously, the private sector can deliver on that faster than any state agency can. So I think if there's continued kind of innovation in their part where they want a unique mission, especially for unique programs or services, that could be a good location for them, because I know they've done some work on the [ St. Clinton ], which is primarily servicing the [indiscernible] of the northern part of the state. Cal City in the southern part of the state could be another complementary facility for some of that programming improvement.

And it may take a better budget situation in the state because that may be an impediment right now, too.

I appreciate that. Yes, I would think this is materially younger than the average age of the facilities in California. Is that fair to say?

That's super fair to say.

That's helpful. And then you mentioned that border security bill, that didn't pass but had a lot of support. What -- do you have like a high level -- any thoughts on what that would mean for alternatives to detention? What that bill if it had passed, what that would have meant for ATD?

Good question. I don't keep me on to you. I don't remember any meaningful adjustment on ATD under that bill. Again, it seems like most of the focus was on additional detention capacity. So again, to say it may be -- there may be some movement there. But I think at least for now, I mean, it seems like the focus has really shifted here in the last year or so on more detention capacity. But anything you'd add to that, David?

I don't. I mean we saw an article yesterday about potential action on bringing back the supplemental. And I think that would be focused more on detention than it would ATD.

Our next question comes from the line of Brian Violino of Wedbush.

Just to kind of ask the expense question in a different way. I think in the past, you've talked about a 25% NOI margin in the Safety and Community segments, combined being sort of the target range going back to pretty dynamic. You were just under 24% this quarter. It seems like you're seeing some positive trends on the expense side. Just wondering if you have an updated view on when we might be able to get to that level on a sustainable basis? And if there's possible upside given the relief on the labor market that you've seen?

Yes, I'll take that one, Brian. Thanks for the question. Yes, we have made a lot of good progress. And in fact, Q1 is typically seasonally one of our worst quarters because of the reset of unemployment taxes. So that actually was a headwind for the margin in Q1. So as we look forward, I do -- going back to the statement I made earlier, I think we still have some hiring to do to get back to pre-pandemic staffing levels. But again, that will be offset somewhat by the temporary incentives that we would incur. So it's certainly -- we've never wavered from getting back to 25% margins on the Safety and Community segments. Whether that's achievable in 2024, I think will be dependent on occupancy since that's the primary driver you get so much leverage over the model when you're increasing your occupancy. So that's going to be the key. And the closer we get to that 80% occupancy, the faster we'll get to the 25%. So I wouldn't rule it out this year. I'm not sure we'll hit that, but it's a possibility.

I'm showing no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn it back to Damon Hininger, Chief Executive Officer, for closing remarks.

Thank you so much. And before we adjourn, let me just also do a public service announcement. On corecivic.com is our newest ESG report. We just released that here in the last couple of weeks. It's our sixth consecutive year of doing ESG report. Take a few minutes and check it out. We've completely reformat it. But more importantly, it just showed a great window into our organization on what we're doing on the human rights front within our facilities to how we're working on talent acquisition, but most notably the outcomes that we're producing for the people on our care through programs, through academic and vocational programs. Take a few minutes, [ thumb ] through it. It shows again a great window in our organization and the great work our team does each and every day. So with that, thank you so much for your time and attention on our call today. Thank you all to our investors for your trust and support of the company. And with that, we're adjourned. Thanks, everyone.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.