Text Size
Print
Email
Top Stories
- Text Size
- Print
- Email
Was Cost the "Main Reason" NAPBS created the PUI?
While the "standardization" and "accuracy" arguments are the professional talking points, the original catalyst for the PUI standard was cost.
The PUI was a compromise designed to solve a "market reality" problem: searching every single municipal court for every candidate was financially impossible for the background screening industry.
1. The Financial Logic of the PUI
Before the PUI, if a CRA (Consumer Reporting Agency) wanted to be 100% compliant in a county like Cuyahoga, they would have to pay a researcher to go to the central Justice Center PLUS 13 different municipal buildings.
-
The Cost Trap: In many counties, courts charge "per search" access fees ($5–$15 each).
A "total" search of Cuyahoga could easily cost $150 in court fees alone, before the CRA even makes a profit. -
The PUI Solution: By defining the Common Pleas Court as the "Predominant" index, the industry agreed that searching that one central location (which captures the "scary" felonies) was the "reasonable" baseline. It allowed CRAs to sell a $30 background check instead of a $200 one.
2. Profit Margins vs. FCRA Liability
The PUI was created to protect the profit margins of CRAs. If a company tried to search "everything," they would be priced out of the market. If they only searched "some things" without a standard, they would get sued.
-
The "Reasonable" Shield: The NAPBS/PBSA used the word "Predominant" strategically. By labeling it the "Predominant" index, they provided a legal argument that searching other "sub-indexes" (like the 78 municipal courts in PR) was not "reasonable" due to the prohibitive cost and effort involved.
3. The PUI is a "Budget Ceiling"
In Puerto Rico, this is even more extreme. Searching the 78 municipal courts individually would be a logistical and financial nightmare.
-
The PUI (Superior Court) is the cost-effective "shortcut."
-
The Police Certificate is the cost-effective "bridge."
By combining the two, a CRA can claim they've done a "thorough" search for a fraction of the cost of actually visiting all the local courts.
Why the PUI is "Non-Compliant" for your specific use case
This is where the cost-saving measure backfires. Because the PUI was created to save money, it intentionally leaves out data.
-
If a company relies on the PUI to save $50, they are essentially "betting" that the candidate doesn't have a record in a municipal court.
-
When that bet fails, the FCRA duty of "Maximum Possible Accuracy" is violated. The CRA chose Cost over Accuracy, which is exactly what plaintiff attorneys look for in a lawsuit.
2026 The Background Investigator. All Rights Reserved.