By Danny Shaw BBC Home Affairs Correspondent

Brixton Prison performed badly

When the new director-general of the Prison Service, Phil Wheatley, was appointed earlier this year, he decided the information should be revealed to a wider audience.

Clearly, the decision had something to do with the need for transparency and openness.

But the main reason is that bosses are desperate to raise standards at failing institutions.

They believe the publicity will act as a catalyst for improvements.

It's a policy that is often referred to as "name and shame" - and in this case it seems to be an apt description.

Anger

Media attention will focus on the three poorest jails - Brixton, Dartmoor and Holloway - rather than the ones at the top, because it's a law of journalism that "bad news" stories make more interesting copy.

Prison officers and managers at those failing jails will feel worse about the efforts they have put in.

And inmates won't feel much better, knowing they've ended up at one of the poorest jails in the country.

The difference with prisons is that 'customers' have no choice

Although some staff may be galvanised into action by the results, initially most will be angry the Prison Service is singling out individual jails.

They see the causes of many of the problems - overcrowding, staff shortages - as being out of their hands.

When the publicity dies down, however, the result may be to prompt an honest assessment by staff of what they need to do to improve.

The experience of school and hospital league tables suggests that in at least some cases, that's been the effect.

Diverting attention

But the difference with prisons is that "customers" have no choice.

A prisoner can't say "I'm not going to Brixton, I'll try Frankland instead."

So the incentive for improvements may not be quite so great.

However, ministers point out that it's right that top prisons should be able to bask in the glow of success and be rewarded with guaranteed funding levels.

The Director-General of the Prison Service wants to raise standards

They say struggling jails will be given chances to make the grade, through performance-testing regimes.

But there remains a suspicion the Prison Service is using the tables as a means to divert attention onto individual jails and away from its own failings.

Rather than managers at Prison Service headquarters being held to account, it'll be area managers and governors instead.

Perhaps it's right that there's more local accountability.

But the effect of that may be to alienate people who look after the most dangerous and disturbed members of society.

That itself has its own dangers.