- Visibility15
- Citations2
- Sentiment70
- Site quality67
- AI readiness29
AI assistants name CoreCivic in 6.7% of answers, which is more often than the typical company in its group. Its overall score is 33 out of 100, ranking 983rd of 2,047 companies. The website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market: none named CoreCivic. AI assistants named it in 4 of 60 answers (6.7%). The typical company in its group is named in 3.3% of answers. By how often it is named, CoreCivic ranks 24 of 61 in its sector.
Every dot is a company in the study. Hover one to see it; click to open its report.
This companySame sectorEvery other companyNever named
Five parts, each scored out of 100.
How often AI assistants name the company
How often AI uses the company's own website as a source
How positively AI describes the company
How well built the website's own pages are
How easily AI tools can read and use the website
Visibility is calculated from the answers on this page. How the score is built.
61 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
An answer that names the company
“What are the main types of corrections and detention service providers in the United States?”
Main Types of Corrections and Detention Service Providers in the United States
The corrections and detention system in the United States includes several types of service providers:
Government Providers
Public/Government Agencies are the primary providers, operating at both federal and state levels:
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) manages federal correctional institutions
State departments of corrections operate state prisons and facilities
Local governments operate county jails and detention centers
Municipal facilities handle short-term detention
Private Providers …
The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.
How the mentions in these answers were split between this company and its rivals
Answers naming it, out of answers received
What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and buy from, on a scale of six levels.
- 0
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Level 1: Basic web presence. Two of robots.txt, a sitemap and Link headers are in place.
- Content Signals
Show every check, for your technical teamHide the checks
- study: 92.0%robots.txtPassed
A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.
- study: 86.8%SitemapPassed
An XML sitemap listing the pages, ideally referenced from robots.txt.
- study: 0.3%Link headersNot met
Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.
- study: 5.5%DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present
Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.
- study: 1.9%Markdown negotiationNot met
Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.
- study: 25.1%llms.txtNot met
Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.
- study: 93.4%AI bot rulesPartly met
Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.
- study: 1.4%Content SignalsNot met
Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.
- study: 0.2%Web Bot AuthNot present
Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.
- study: 0.3%API CatalogNot met
List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.
- study: 11.8%OAuth discoveryNot met
Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.
- study: 10.3%OAuth Protected ResourceNot met
Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.
- study: 0.0%auth.mdNot met
Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.
- study: 0.2%MCP Server CardNot met
Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.
- study: 0.1%A2A Agent CardNot met
Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.
- study: 0.2%Agent SkillsNot met
Publish a skills index with the main tasks agents can do.
- study: 33.7%WebMCPNot met
Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.
- study: 0.1%ARD manifestNot met
Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.
Score 24 of 100 · 100% of checks could run · checked on October 3, 2026 · www.corecivic.com · 2,047 companies scanned
4 of 14 passed. This list is for your technical team. The percentage is how many companies in the study pass each check.
These 14 checks ran during the audit and are what the AI readiness part of the overall score counts. The scan above ran later and is stricter on Link headers and Markdown, so a check can pass here and not there.
Show the 14 checksHide them
- Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.0%
- PassedXML sitemapstudy: 73.2%
- PassedHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
- Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
- Not metllms.txt publishedstudy: 21.7%
- PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 95.2%
- Not metExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 13.0%
- Not metAPI Catalog (.well-known/api-catalog)study: 0.2%
- Not metOAuth Authorization Server discoverystudy: 10.1%
- Not metOAuth Protected Resource discoverystudy: 9.3%
- Not metMCP Server Cardstudy: 0.0%
- Not metA2A Agent Cardstudy: 0.0%
- Not metWebMCP toolsstudy: 4.2%
- Not metAgent Skills declaredstudy: 0.0%
This website sets no rules for any AI crawler by name, like 84% of the websites whose rules we could read. Every AI crawler follows its general rules.
- GPTBotpartly
- ClaudeBotpartly
- Anthropic-AIpartly
- Google-Extendedpartly
- Applebot-Extendedpartly
- Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
- FacebookBotpartly
- Bytespiderpartly
- CCBotpartly
- Diffbotpartly
- Omgilibotpartly
- OAI-SearchBotpartly
- Claude-SearchBotpartly
- PerplexityBotpartly
- Applebotpartly
- Amazonbotpartly
- YouBotpartly
- ChatGPT-Userpartly
- Claude-Userpartly
- Perplexity-Userpartly
- DuckAssistBotpartly
- MistralAI-Userpartly
Read from the website’s own rules file (robots.txt). An asterisk marks a crawler the file names. The rest follow its general rules. “Partly” means only some pages are blocked.
How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers
In the study as US-listed.
- How are corrections facilities’ service fees generally structured for local governments?
- How do public and private detention centers differ in terms of rehabilitation programs?
- Factors to consider before outsourcing detention facility management
- Residential reentry centers vs. traditional correctional facilities: what's the difference?
- Typical cost differences between jail management solutions and detention services providers in the U.S.
- Alternatives to private detention facilities for managing inmate populations
- Common challenges when implementing new corrections management systems
- Which corrections services support compassionate health care for incarcerated individuals?
- What are the main types of corrections and detention service providers in the United States?
- What options exist for housing individuals awaiting trial outside traditional jails?
- How do partnerships with real estate solution providers support new correctional facility development?
- Best practices for selecting a corrections management partner for government agencies
- When is it appropriate to use residential reentry centers as part of a correctional strategy?
- How to address staffing shortages in detention and reentry centers
- Are contracted corrections services worth it for small municipalities?
Columns, left to right: OpenAI, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini. The AI assistants often disagree. Across the study, on 40% of the questions where a company is named, only one of the four names it.
A badge of this result that you can show on your own website. Copy the code below.
<a href="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/corecivic.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/badges/corecivic.com.svg" alt="Overall score 33 of 100, US AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>