Commitments, Contingencies and Other	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER	COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER Litigation, Claims and Assessments On August 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley ("Mr. Zoley"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans ("Mr. Evans"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. The lawsuit alleged that it was brought by John J. Mulvaney individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the alleged class period between March 1, 2012 through and including August 17, 2016. The complaint alleged that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleged that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 21, 2016, the appointed lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, which reasserted the claims against the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans, and asserted new claims for alleged false and misleading statements in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's former Senior Vice President, GEO Detention & Corrections Services, John Hurley ("Mr. Hurley") and the Company's Senior Vice President and President, GEO Corrections & Detention, David Donahue ("Mr. Donahue"). The amended complaint sought damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On February 23, 2017, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On March 17, 2017, the case was dismissed with prejudice and resulted in no liability to the Company. On February 8, 2017, the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi against the Company, Cornell Companies, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, Christopher B. Epps, the former Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Cecil McCrory, a former consultant of the Company. The complaint alleges several statutory and common law claims, including violations of various public servant statutes, racketeering activity, antitrust law, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and fraud. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, exemplary damages, forfeiture of all money received by the defendants, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, other costs, and such other expenses or damages as the court may deem proper. The complaint claims that between 2007 and 2014, the Company and Cornell Companies, Inc. received approximately $256 million in proceeds from public contracts paid for by the State of Mississippi. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and Cornell Companies, Inc. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this preliminary stage of the lawsuit. On October 22, 2014, nine current and former civil immigration detainees who were detained at the Aurora Immigration Detention Center filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Court”). The complaint alleged that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and claimed that the Company was unjustly enriched as a result of the level of payment that the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in this case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. On July 6, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the claim against the Company under the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act but otherwise denied the Company’s motion to dismiss. On February 27, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court ordered the parties to file a revised Proposed Stipulated Scheduling and Discovery Order by March 27, 2017 to proceed with the case. On March 13, 2017, GEO filed for permission to appeal this class certification order directly to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal. On April 11, 2017, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal granted GEO's petition to hear the case. As a result, GEO has filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court. Fact discovery in the case has not yet begun. The plaintiffs seek actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in the lawsuit. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuit. If the Company had to change the level of compensation under the voluntary work program, or to substitute employee work for voluntary work, this could increase costs of operating these facilities. The nature of the Company's business exposes it to various types of third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims, intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner's escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. The Company does not expect the outcome of any pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other Assessment A state non-income tax audit completed in 2016 included tax periods for which the state tax authority had a number of years ago processed a substantial tax refund. At the completion of the audit fieldwork, the Company received a notice of audit findings disallowing deductions that were previously claimed by the Company, approved by the state tax authority and served as the basis for the approved refund claim. In early January 2017, the Company received a formal Notice of Assessment of Taxes and Demand for Payment from the taxing authority disallowing the deductions. The total tax, penalty and interest assessed is approximately $19.6 million. The Company has filed an administrative protest and disagrees with the assessment and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend its position. The Company has established a reserve based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter. Commitments The Company currently has contractual commitments for a number of projects using Company financing. The Company’s management estimates that the cost of these existing capital projects will be approximately $243.9 million of which $82.6 million was spent through the first nine months of 2017. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these capital projects will be $161.3 million which will be spent through 2018. Idle Facilities As of September 30, 2017, the Company is marketing approximately 5,400 vacant beds at five of its idle facilities to potential customers. The carrying values of these idle facilities, which are included in Property and Equipment, Net in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, totaled $137.3 million as of September 30, 2017, excluding equipment and other assets that can be easily transferred for use at other facilities. There was no indication of impairment related to the Company's idle facilities at September 30, 2017.

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER

Litigation, Claims and Assessments

On August 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley ("Mr. Zoley"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans ("Mr. Evans"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. The lawsuit alleged that it was brought by John J. Mulvaney individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the alleged class period between March 1, 2012 through and including August 17, 2016. The complaint alleged that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleged that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 21, 2016, the appointed lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, which reasserted the claims against the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans, and asserted new claims for alleged false and misleading statements in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's former Senior Vice President, GEO Detention & Corrections Services, John Hurley ("Mr. Hurley") and the Company's Senior Vice President and President, GEO Corrections & Detention, David Donahue ("Mr. Donahue"). The amended complaint sought damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On February 23, 2017, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On March 17, 2017, the case was dismissed with prejudice and resulted in no liability to the Company.

On February 8, 2017, the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi against the Company, Cornell Companies, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, Christopher B. Epps, the former Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Cecil McCrory, a former consultant of the Company. The complaint alleges several statutory and common law claims, including violations of various public servant statutes, racketeering activity, antitrust law, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and fraud. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, exemplary damages, forfeiture of all money received by the defendants, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, other costs, and such other expenses or damages as the court may deem proper. The complaint claims that between 2007 and 2014, the Company and Cornell Companies, Inc. received approximately $256 million in proceeds from public contracts paid for by the State of Mississippi. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and Cornell Companies, Inc. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this preliminary stage of the lawsuit.

On October 22, 2014, nine current and former civil immigration detainees who were detained at the Aurora Immigration Detention Center filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Court”). The complaint alleged that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and claimed that the Company was unjustly enriched as a result of the level of payment that the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in this case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. On July 6, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the claim against the Company under the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act but otherwise denied the Company’s motion to dismiss. On February 27, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court ordered the parties to file a revised Proposed Stipulated Scheduling and Discovery Order by March 27, 2017 to proceed with the case. On March 13, 2017, GEO filed for permission to appeal this class certification order directly to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal. On April 11, 2017, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal granted GEO's petition to hear the case. As a result, GEO has filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court. Fact discovery in the case has not yet begun. The plaintiffs seek actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in the lawsuit. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuit. If the Company had to change the level of compensation under the voluntary work program, or to substitute employee work for voluntary work, this could increase costs of operating these facilities.

The nature of the Company's business exposes it to various types of third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims, intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner's escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. The Company does not expect the outcome of any pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Assessment

A state non-income tax audit completed in 2016 included tax periods for which the state tax authority had a number of years ago processed a substantial tax refund. At the completion of the audit fieldwork, the Company received a notice of audit findings disallowing deductions that were previously claimed by the Company, approved by the state tax authority and served as the basis for the approved refund claim. In early January 2017, the Company received a formal Notice of Assessment of Taxes and Demand for Payment from the taxing authority disallowing the deductions. The total tax, penalty and interest assessed is approximately $19.6 million. The Company has filed an administrative protest and disagrees with the assessment and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend its position. The Company has established a reserve based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter.

Commitments

The Company currently has contractual commitments for a number of projects using Company financing. The Company’s management estimates that the cost of these existing capital projects will be approximately $243.9 million of which $82.6 million was spent through the first nine months of 2017. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these capital projects will be $161.3 million which will be spent through 2018.

Idle Facilities

As of September 30, 2017, the Company is marketing approximately 5,400 vacant beds at five of its idle facilities to potential customers. The carrying values of these idle facilities, which are included in Property and Equipment, Net in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, totaled $137.3 million as of September 30, 2017, excluding equipment and other assets that can be easily transferred for use at other facilities. There was no indication of impairment related to the Company's idle facilities at September 30, 2017.