Moorland Closed and Moorland Open are counted together
Ministry of Justice Performance Rating for this prison: 3
This is on a scale from 1 (serious concerns) to 4 (Exceptional) and is worked out by the Ministry of Justice taking into account 34 criteria such as overcrowding, purposeful activities etc. A score of 3 is considered a good performance. Published quarterly.
Average weekly hours of Purposeful Activity: 28.0 (2010)
This figure is supplied by each prison to the Prison Service. Actual hours are usually dependent on activities etc. and should be taken as the maximum time either in workshops or education over a whole week.
Both of these figures are published retrospectively by the MoJ and HMPS and may have changed since the figures were published but they give a simple comparison between prisons.
Moorland and Hatfield share a budget so the figures below relate to both establishments
Annual Budget: £19,500,000 (2011-12)*
Approx cost per prisoner place (2010): £36,794
*The annual budget allocated to the governor covers all major costs of running the prison but excludes most costs related to education and healthcare.
Because Moorland is a closed prison and Hatfield an open prison the actual cost per prisoner will vary.
CONSTITUENCY: Don Valley
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Caroline Flint (Labour)
Prisoners may write to either their ‘Home MP’ or the MP in whose constituency their current prison lies.
The address to write to is:
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Most prisons now have PIN phones. Your relative or friend usually needs to apply to have your name and number on his/her telephone account. You will usually receive a call from the prison to check who you are and to ensure you are happy for them to call you. Prisoners cannot receive telephone calls.
There is no restriction on who prisoners can call except in the case of calls to journalists intended to be broadcast. In some cases child protection measures may mean extra checks on who they call.
Prisoners can normally make calls only during ‘association’ periods. Some prisons limit the length of time a call can last to avoid queues and people being disappointed. Prisoners’ telephone calls are very expensive; calls to landlines now cost 10p per minute and 37.5 p to mobiles (compared to 2p in a public phone box). In most prisons the phone calls can be listened to and/or recorded.
If a prisoner is newly convicted or transferred they should be offered an immediate ‘Reception’ phone call to tell you where they are. It may take a few days for numbers to be transferred or added.
When you write to a prisoner you must include your full name and address. In most prisons the letters are searched and can be read before being given to the prisoner.
You can write about anything but letters must not be obscene, name ‘victims’, or be a threat to discipline or security. Do not enclose any items with letters. Make sure you put sufficient postage to cover the costs (anything bigger than A5 counts as ‘large’). Prisoners can normally receive a ‘reasonable’ number of letters per week.
If you send greetings cards these should be of reasonable size and not padded or pouched. Do not send musical cards. If you are sending more than one card put them all inside one outer envelope, this saves postage. Remember to include your full details (you could put your details on a ‘Post-It’ note stuck to the card or include a letter which has your details).
Always put the prisoner’s full name and prison number. If the person has been moved their mail will be forwarded.
On conviction or transfer a prisoner should be given a ‘Reception’ letter to write to tell you where they are.
Prisoners are given a free letter each week to post out, they can send more, but at their own expense. Some prisons allow you to send in stamps.
You can usually send in photographs but in some prisons these must not include any image of the prisoner. Child protection measures may mean that some prisoners may not receive pictures of children, unless they are their own and were not ‘victims’. If you send pictures of children include an explanatory note identifying who the children are and their relationship to the prisoner.
It is not a good idea to send cash, this can get ‘lost’ in the prison. Prisons prefer postal orders, but you could send a cheque. Make these payable to ‘H M Prison Service’, write your name on the back and also the prisoner’s full name and prison number. Any money sent which is deemed to be ‘anonymous’ can be stopped.
Money you send is paid into the prisoner’s ‘Private Cash’ account and they get access to a certain amount (depending upon IEP) each week [currently £15.50 for Standard prisoners].
For full information about visits please refer to our ‘Visit Info’ section for this prison. Visits are very important to prisoners. At most prisons you may not give any item to the prisoner. Any items you wish to give them must usually be posted to the prison, and often after the prisoner has placed an ‘application’ for authorisation to have it sent in. The items which can be posted in are very limited. Check with the prisoner first and wait until they confirm that you can post it.
If there is a serious emergency - close family serious illness, death, or other reason you need to inform the prisoner immediately, you should telephone the main prison number and explain the problem to the operator who will transfer you to the appropriate person. If you are unhappy about their response redial and ask to speak to the Chaplaincy. Prison staff will not pass on general messages but only critical and very urgent messages. You should provide full details of the prisoner including their number.
Support and Advice
There are many very good charities and agencies who offer support and advice to people with family or friends in prison. We have a special section ‘Help/Support’ which has details and contact information for many of these. Do not hesitate or feel shy about calling any of these; they are there to offer support and advice.
EMAIL A PRISONER
This service operates at this prison. Email a Prisoner enables you to send messages to prisoners, in the UK and Irish prisons that operate the service, from any computer, without any of the hassles of writing and posting a letter, and it costs less than a second class stamp!
Your message is delivered to the prison within seconds so that it can be delivered to the prisoner by the prison staff in the next delivery.
It is free to sign up to Email a Prisoner and only takes a few seconds - all you need is an email address (EMaP can help you if you don't have an email address).
Once a member you will be able to send a message to any prisoner in the UK or Ireland, provided you know their prisoner number, from just 25 pence per message.
Click Here for link to Email a Prisoner website
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP)
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMI Prisons) is an independent inspectorate which reports on conditions for, and treatment of, those in prisons, young offender institutions and immigration detention facilities. They provide independent scrutiny of the conditions for and treatment of prisoners and other detainees, promoting the concept of 'healthy prisons' in which staff work effectively to support prisoners and detainees to reduce reoffending or achieve other agreed outcomes.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) is appointed from outside the Prison Service, for a term of five years. The Chief Inspector reports to Ministers on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons in England and Wales.
The Inspectorate’s programme of inspection is based on a mixture of chronology and risk assessment. Full inspections run on a five or three year cycle; all unannounced follow-up inspections run on a risk-assessed basis.
Prison establishments holding adults and young adults are inspected once every five years. Establishments holding juveniles are inspected every three years. This type of inspection lasts for at least one week. The Inspectorate collects information from many sources, including the people who work there, the people who are imprisoned or detained there, and visitors or others with an interest in the establishment. Inspection findings are reported back to the establishment’s managers. Reports are published within 16 weeks of inspection. The establishment is then expected to produce an action plan, based on the recommendations made within the report, within a short period following publication.
Full follow-up inspections
Follow-up inspections are unannounced and proportionate to risk. In full follow-up inspections inspectors assess progress made and undertake in-depth analysis of areas of serious concern identified in the previous full inspection, particularly on safety and respect.
Short follow-up inspections
Short follow-up inspections are also unannounced and conducted where the previous full inspection and their intelligence systems suggest that there are comparatively fewer concerns.
Three escort inspections are conducted every year.
One month prior to each full announced inspection, an inspector will visit the establishment to plan the inspection and request a range of preliminary information. In addition, researchers will attend to conduct a confidential survey of a representative proportion of the prisoner population. Results from the prisoner survey are provided for inspectors prior to the inspection and constitute an important source of evidence.
All inspections are conducted against the Inspectorate's published inspection criteria, 'Expectations'. Expectations' are based on international human rights standards, as well as Prison Service Orders and Standards, and over all issues considered essential to the safe, respectful and purposeful treatment of prisoners in custody and their effective resettlement.
'Expectations' is the document which sets out the detailed criteria HMI Prisons uses to appraise and inspect prisons. These criteria are used to examine every area of prison life, from reception to resettlement, including;
• safer custody
• health services
• good order
The concept of a healthy prison is one that was first set out by the World Health Organisation, but it has been developed by this Inspectorate, and is now widely accepted as a definition of what ought to be provided in any custodial environment. It rests upon four key tests:
• safety: prisoners, even the most vulnerable, are held safely
• respect: prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity
• purposeful activity: prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them
• resettlement: prisoners are prepared for release into the community, and helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending
Inspection reports are published within 16 weeks of the inspection. Prior to publication, the Prison Service (or whoever is responsible for the establishment) is invited to correct any factual inaccuracies within the report. The establishment is then expected to produce an action plan, based on the recommendations made in the report, within two months of publication. A progress report on the action plain is produced after a further 12 months.
Last Inspection by HMCIP: 29 November — 3 December 2010 - announced inspection
Report Dated: April 2011
Published: July 15th 2011
“Moorland is a category C training prison holding sentenced adults and young offenders. At the time of this announced inspection, the prison held between 430 and 433 prisoners.
“ The inspection took place at the beginning of December 2010. One month earlier, a serious disturbance had caused significant damage to the prison and the impact of this was apparent during our inspection. Although the inspection took place after the disturbance, the prisoner survey which informed the inspection was undertaken shortly beforehand, and inspectors also examined data relating to the period before the disturbance. So although this report does not explain why the disturbance took place – and certainly does not excuse it – it does describe what was happening in the prison before and after those events.
“ The inspection took place at a time when the normal regime of the prison was disrupted by heavy snow and this restricted some of what we could see.
“ Moorland prison has been combined for management purposes with Hatfield open prison. The inspection covered both locations. However, although some management processes and policies were common to both prisons, they were very different. We did not find any evidence that outcomes for prisoners had improved as a consequence of the merger. Indeed, in some areas we found that, because the data or other information relating to both sites was combined, it was not possible to identify and therefore address issues that were specific to either location. We have therefore reported on each location separately.
“ We concluded that overall, most prisoners were reasonably safe. There were good violence reduction measures in place and arrangements to care for prisoners at risk of self-harm or suicide were generally effective. Staff in the segregation unit treated prisoners respectfully and there was a welcome emphasis on encouraging segregated prisoners to reintegrate. Reception and induction arrangements were very good. It was pleasing to see that drug use appeared to be low.
“ However, there were some worrying exceptions. We were very surprised to learn that, despite a 20% increase in the number of security intelligence reports in the six months prior to the inspection, no attempt had been made to understand the reasons behind this. Other data that might have informed an assessment of the overall security and safety of the prison was not sufficiently analysed. No doubt this is something that those investigating the causes of the disturbance will want to consider further.
“ Although most prisoners felt safe, almost a third who responded to our survey told us they had felt threatened and intimidated by staff. The culture was too punitive and restrictive. Interventions to deal with poor behaviour did not usually go beyond issuing sanctions; there was insufficient attempt to tackle any underlying issues. The incidence of the use of force was high and almost two-thirds (60%) involved young adults who comprised just over a third (37%) of the population. Planned use of force was not filmed, so there was no way of confirming that it was carried out appropriately.
“ Our concerns about the safety of some prisoners reflected a more significant worry about staffprisoner relationships in general. Prisoner perceptions of relationships were poor and our own observations bore out some of these concerns. We saw little positive interaction between staff and prisoners at key times. Few prisoners said they had someone they could approach with a problem. Relationships in specialist units such as reception or segregation were better. Staff added their own, informal sanctions to prisoners on the basic level of the IEP scheme by unlocking them separately and so, in effect, keeping them segregated. Outcomes for prisoners in relation to diversity issues were poor and prisoners had little confidence in the system for dealing with racist incidents.
“ The poor relationships were compounded by an unsatisfactory physical environment and basic services. We saw many cells that were shabby, in a poor state of decoration and covered in graffiti. Many had been designed to hold two prisoners but some small cells that were intended for one also held two. Mail and telephone services were inefficient. The laundry was particularly disorganised so prisoners had clothing that was ill-fitting, dirty and in bad state of repair. Prisoners told us they did not receive cleaning material regularly enough to keep their cells clean. They complained about the quality and quantity of food, although we found that the food was adequate. As in all prisons, the price of goods from the canteen was much higher than could be obtained on the high street. Health was one area where services were improving with the appointment of a new provider. Improvements had been made to the health facilities environment.
“ The amount and quality of activity available to prisoners offered a better picture, although time out of cell was not good for any prisoner and was worse for the young adults. However, at the time of the inspection there was enough good quality work, education and training for most prisoners. There was a good library and gym. This provision would, of course, be put under more pressure once numbers in the prison increased as damaged accommodation was brought back into use.
“ There was some good resettlement activity. The accommodation services provided by Shelter were particularly good and offender management processes generally worked well. However, none of this was underpinned by a needs-based strategy and, overall, resettlement provision was insufficient and inconsistent. Although arrangements for visits were satisfactory there was little positive work to help prisoners build or repair relationships with their families.
“ Moorland had some solid strengths on which to build. Learning and skills provision, a much improved health service, the accommodation function run by Shelter, the apparently low availability of drugs and good specialist functions such as reception and segregation, all stand out as positive features of the prison. However, intelligence was not used effectively to identify trends or patterns of concern and this, combined with very poor staff-prisoner relationships and weak resettlement provision, threatened the prison’s ability to hold prisoners safely and securely while working to reduce the likelihood of their reoffending on release.”
Nick Hardwick April 2011
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Click Here to read the full report
by HMCIP: October 2008 (Unannounced Follow-Up Inspection)
“HMP & YOI Moorland is a large, complex and sprawling prison, holding over 1,000 prisoners in two sites: a closed training prison and an open resettlement prison at some distance from it. Both sites hold young adult, as well as adult, men, some of whom are deemed unsuitable for less secure category C environments. This is not an easy combination to manage, and this inspection found that the prison was not performing sufficiently well against two of our four key tests.
“Moorland was a reasonably safe prison. Suicide and self-harm procedures were well managed, and there was a good violence reduction strategy, though some elements of implementation required improvement. The segregation unit was well run, but use of force was relatively high, and needed further analysis and attention.
“By contrast, neither the physical environment nor staff–prisoner relationships were sufficiently good. Much of the closed site was shabby and dirty. Relationships between prisoners and staff were distant and distrustful, personal officer work was virtually non-existent, and there was over-reliance on formal applications and complaints.
“Around one in five prisoners were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, but race did not have a sufficiently high profile, and fewer staff than at the previous inspection had been trained in diversity and race equality. Other aspects of diversity were developing. Foreign nationals were well supported on the closed site, but not on the open site. Healthcare services were not matched to need, particularly in relation to mental health, and the regime in the in-patient unit was poor.
“Activities were reasonably good. In theory, there was almost full employment, though in practice we found only half the available places filled on one day of the inspection. Vocational training had expanded, and was geared towards employability. The standard and range of educational provision was good. On the open site, around 100 prisoners were able to work outside the prison, in paid or voluntary work, though relatively few young adults were able to take advantage of this.
“Given its role, it was particularly disappointing that resettlement work at Moorland had deteriorated since the previous inspection. There was no up-to-date or coherent strategy and no needs analysis: there appeared to be an assumption that Moorland’s resettlement role was restricted to opportunities to work outside on the open site. Offender management was not sufficiently proactive, and there was a shortage of offending behaviour programmes. Resettlement pathways, on the closed site, were underdeveloped and under-resourced, though substance misuse services had improved.
“Moorland was an early example of a closed training prison being clustered with an open prison. This is now becoming common practice. Moorland’s experience, as evidenced at this inspection, is not encouraging. It had not proved possible either to tackle some of the underlying cultural issues, or to provide an effective resettlement strategy for the whole prison. Though the prison’s new management was seeking to remedy these deficits, the nature of the site and the mixture of the population will continue to present a challenge.”
Anne Owers April 2009
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Click here to read the full report
Independent Monitoring Board
By law every prison and immigration removal centre must have an Independent Monitoring Board. IMBs in prisons derive their responsibilities from the Prison Act 1952 (Section 6). Prison Rules dealing with IMBs are numbers; 74 to 80
IMBs were known as ‘Boards of Visitors’ and are still referred to in the legislation under their old titles, although this is likely to change in the near future.
The Independent Monitoring Board for each establishment is made up of independent and unpaid volunteers from the local area. They monitor the day-to-day life in the establishment and ensure that proper standards of care and decency are maintained. Members have unrestricted access to all areas of the prison at all times and can talk to any prisoner they wish, out of sight and hearing of a members of staff. They visit all areas such as; kitchens, workshops, accommodation blocks, recreation areas, healthcare centre and chaplaincy.
If a prisoner or detainee has an issue that they have been unable to resolve through the usual internal channels, they can place a confidential request to see a member of the IMB. Problems might include concerns over lost property, visits from family or friends, special religious or cultural requirements, or even serious allegations such as bullying. In addition, if something serious happens at the prison, for example a riot or a death in custody, IMB members may be called in to attend and observe the way in which it is handled.
IMB members sample food, can attend adjudications and should visit people held in the segregation unit. They must also be kept informed on such issues as the use of restraints.
The IMB meets regularly, usually once per month, and has an elected Chair and Vice Chair. Members work together as a team to raise any matters of concern and to keep an independent eye on the prison.
CLICK HERE - to read the latest IMB reports for any prison.
Click on the year and then select the prison.
Information in this section has been kindly provided by the individual prison and the Ministry of Justice. This is supplemented with information from various government websites, Inspectorates and IMB reports and specialist departments within the Prison Service, government, and regional assemblies/parliaments.
Some of the data is published retrospectively: IMBs/Visiting Committees publish their reports up to 6 months after the end of the reporting period and at different times throughout the year, HMCIP publish their reports up to 6 months after the inspection. Population and performance figures are the latest published but can be considerably out of date.
Please Note: Information is constantly changing: The information on our website is regularly checked but if you have additional information, or if you believe that any of our information is incorrect or any links appear to fail please click on ‘Contact’, below.
Before acting upon any information you are advised to contact the prison directly to ensure there have been no recent changes.
Last Update: June 2012