It discusses inadequate preemployment screening or background investigations, failure to dismiss an officer whose duty performance is detrimental because of a high number of excessive force complaints or moral turpitude, the placement of officers in duty areas in which they are unprepared to perform, and the retention of an officer known to be unfit. A case study of security negligence is presented to indicate how personnel mismanagement can lead to serious liability claims in the contract guard business. It is recommended that the security industry follow sound personnel practices in hiring, evaluating and supervising guards. Guard companies must take the initiative in developing personnel practices that will reduce the threat of liability, including the testing of guards. The suggestion is made that security companies use the following tests as part of their screening process: (1) the personnel selection inventory (PSI) to assess such characteristics as employee dishonesty, violence, and drug abuse; (2) the Eysenck Personality Inventory, a battery of perceptual tests used to distinguish emotional stability v. neuroticism, extroversion v. introversion, and realism v. psychoticism; (3) the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI); and (4) the California Personality Inventory (CPI). The latter two tests, which measure personal and social adjustment patterns or deviance, are frequently used in law enforcement to screen applicants. It also is recommended that States increase their requirements for obtaining guard licenses and/or weapon permits and that legislation be enacted to set standards for private guards similar to those used in police personnel practices. 26 references.