Many proponents of in-house security operations argue that it provides better qualified and more loyal personnel than contract security services and that it ensures less personnel turnover. These arguments do not stand the test of empirical analysis, however. The quality of a work force is related more to compensation than to employment structure, and the loyalty of a contract employee to the company served can be just as strong as that of an in-house employee if the company targets rewards and incentives to contract employees. Employee turnover in contract security services is governed by the same factors as in-house employee turnover, that is, job satisfaction, pay, and incentives. There are other job factors, however, that do weight differently according to whether or not security personnel are in-house or contracted. Contract security services yield more efficient personnel administration and resource allocation, reduced overhead, more effective emergency response, the benefits of shared resourcing with other organizations, reduced staffing, and risk transference to the supplier. In-house security services, on the other hand, provide greater integration of security services with corporate goals, greater use of the company's infrastructure to meet security's operational requirements, and greater control over the factors that affect the continuity of quality security services. The decision about whether to use in-house or contract security services depends on the culture and circumstances of the individual organization.