The traditional reform viewpoint of prison instability (as manifested in riots and other disturbances) is that it is an inevitable consequence of failing to institute appeasement and marshall the resources of social change. However, the view of stability as a function of managing social change understates and misconstrues the task. Generally, social change affecting correctional institutions has been fitful. In addition, there has been ideological fragmentation among reformers. Reform and social change effect institutions and parts of institutions differentially, and the effects of change are unpredictable. Finally, resistance to change is ubiquitous and reinforced by a strong tendency toward bureaucratic conformity. While social change may act as a catalyst to reform, it does not automatically bring stability to institutions. Initiation of change by well-qualified administrators, rather than adaptation to change is what is needed to secure stability. This will depend upon correctional authorities serving as conduits of internal change by identifying goals and objectives, making sound choices, and providing the framework to ensure input and social compliance from both staff and inmates. 67 footnotes.