Advocates urge ban on SIB investments in private detention firms; testimony highlights GEO Group exposure
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Supporters of SB 6,109 told the Ways and Means Committee that Washington should not profit from private detention and urged SIB to divest from firms like GEO Group; witnesses said the bill is narrowly tailored and consistent with legislative opposition to private detention.
Senate Bill 6,109 would prohibit the Washington State Investment Board from making new investments in private detention facilities beginning in 2026 and require divestment by Jan. 1, 2030. Amanda Cecil, committee staff, briefed the bill and noted SIB currently retains a small position in GEO Group.
Faith groups, immigrant‑rights organizations and legal advocates told the committee the bill aligns SIB investments with state policy and moral concerns. Kristen Ang, policy director for Faith Action Network, said the bill “is narrowly tailored and does not require bridal investment or reduced portfolio diversification,” adding that jobs rooted in detention “do not build community and well‑being.” Tim Wharton Hertz, a Tacoma attorney with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said private operators create barriers to transparency and accountability and that a profit motive is incompatible with humane detention practice.
Hannah Warner of Columbia Legal Services noted that the legislature has repeatedly signaled opposition to private detention in Washington and called continued SIB investment “hypocritical” if the state otherwise seeks to block private facilities from operating. Jean Welch Hill of the Washington State Catholic Conference said taxpayer dollars should not line the pockets of private prison companies and described public harms caused by for‑profit detention.
Committee members asked staff whether SIB currently invests in private detention companies; staff said there is a small investment in GEO Group. The bill’s fiscal note was requested but not available at the hearing; public testimony focused on ethical and human‑rights rationales and the limits of engagement and proxy voting when a firm’s business model centers on detention.