Text Size
Print
Email
Top Stories
- Text Size
- Print
- Email
Why Do CRA's Use the PUI (Predominant Court Index)
The NAPBS (now the PBSA) instituted the PUI (Predominant Court Index) standard specifically to solve the "jurisdictional chaos" that was causing massive FCRA litigation against background screening companies.
Before the PUI standard, there was no uniform definition of what constituted a "complete" search of a county. Some companies would search just the local municipal court, while others would search only the central superior court, and both would market it as a "County-Wide Search."
The NAPBS created the PUI to force Truth in Advertising and Standardized Accuracy. Here is the specific reasoning:
1. Eliminating the "Fulfillment" Guesswork
The PUI was designed to identify the single most comprehensive index within a jurisdiction that houses the vast majority of relevant criminal records (typically Felonies and serious Misdemeanors).
-
The Problem: In places like Cuyahoga County or Puerto Rico, as you noted, a "central" index is structurally incomplete.
-
The Solution: By defining what the PUI is for a specific area, the NAPBS forced CRAs to disclose exactly what they are—and aren't—searching. If a CRA searches the PUI but knows it misses the municipal layer, they are ethically (and under accreditation rules) bound to disclose that limitation.
2. Defining "Reasonable Procedures" (FCRA 607b)
The FCRA requires "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy." The NAPBS realized that without a standard definition of the Predominant index, a CRA could get sued for negligence if they missed a record in a "side" court.
-
The PUI acts as a Legal Shield: If a CRA searches the designated PUI for a county, they can argue in court that they followed industry-standard "reasonable procedures."
-
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.
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.
-
2025 The Background Investigator. All Rights Reserved.