Research Studies & Reports
DMV’s Research & Development Branch has been conducting research and producing studies and reports since the 1950s. Research & Development reports help DMV to measure the impact of new laws on making drivers safer. We also identify areas where we can improve our processes, explore new approaches to solving existing problems, and branch out into new opportunities to serve you better.
Studies & Reports Sections
Studies and reports are assigned to a Section that best describes the type of report. Click on a section title below to see a short description.
I. Driver Education & Training Studies
II. Driver Licensing Screening Studies
III. Studies on Improvement and Control of Deviant Drivers
IV. Basic Research & Methodological Studies: Driver Performance, Accident Etiology, Prediction Models, and Actuarial Applications
V. Driver Licensing / Control Systems & Safety Management Studies
VI. Studies on Special Driver Populations
VII. Miscellaneous Studies & Reports
Request printed copies of studies and reports by mail at:
Department of Motor Vehicles
Research and Development Branch
2415 1st Ave. Mail Station: F-126
Sacramento, CA 95818
(916) 914-8125
Please include the report number, the number of copies requested, and your name, address, and phone number.
| Report ID | Date Published | Title | Section | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 224 | 2008/ 01 |
2008 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this seventeenth annual legislatively-mandated report, 2005 and 2006 DUI data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents cross tabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions and alcohol-involved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested in each year over a time period of sixteen years. Also, the longterm recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 1994. Analyses were conducted on the effectiveness of alcohol education programs upon the 1-year postconviction records of those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving, and on the effectiveness of the 3-month versus 6-month alcohol education programs on the 1-year postconviction records of first offenders. Two additional subanalyses were conducted to determine if differences on the outcome measures were related to BAC level (below 0.20% and 0.20% and above). The proportions of 2005 convicted first and second offenders who were referred to alcohol education/treatment programs are also presented. |
V | |
| 231 | 2010/ 01 |
2010 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this nineteenth annual legislatively-mandated report, 2007 and 2008 DUI data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents crosstabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions and alcohol-involved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested in each year over a time period of 18 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 1994. Analyses were conducted on the effectiveness of DUI programs in reducing 1-year subsequent violations and crashes of those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving, and on the effectiveness of the 3-month versus 9-month DUI programs for first offenders. Two additional subanalyses were conducted to determine if differences in the outcome measures were related to BAC level (below 0.20% and 0.20% and above). The proportions of 2007 convicted first and second offenders who were referred, enrolled, and completed DUI programs are also presented. |
V | |
| 239 | 2012/ 09 |
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JAIL SENTENCES AND JAIL TERMS ACTUALLY SERVED AMONG DUI OFFENDERS IN SELECTED CALIFORNIA COUNTIESRecords of 32.7% of California’s DUI offenders convicted in 2006, who received jail or a jail alternative sentence, were used to compare jail terms at sentencing to actual jail time served, and to describe used alternative sanctions to jail. County data systems’ variation, tracking methods, quality and completeness of data, and lack of communication between Courts and Sheriff’s Departments limited sample size and representativeness. Percentages of jail time served across participating counties ranged from 0 to 67% for 1st offenders, 0 to 47% for 2nd offenders, and 0 to 67% for 3rd+ offenders. Median percentages of jail sentences actually served across participating counties were 0%, 19%, and 38% for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd+ offenders, respectively. Alternative sentences were used more often on 1 st DUI offenders, less so on 2 nd offenders, and least often on 3 rd offenders. The most popular alternative sentences in lieu of jail options were Sheriff’s Work Program and Caltrans Work Program. Jail sentences reported to DMV greatly overstate amount of jail time actually served by DUI offenders. Further evaluation of effectiveness of jail time served by California DUI offenders is not possible at present because California’s DUI Offender Tracking System does not keep good track of offenders. Recommendations are: results from previous California DMV studies and/or studies from other states showing jail terms as ineffective in reducing alcohol-involved crashes or DUI recidivism should be taken with caution; efforts should be made so California’s DUI Offender Tracking System is consistent with NHTSA’s 2006 guidelines; DMV’s court abstract collection system should require jail terms keyed in, if disposition code “J” is present; DMV’s JAG project to assess accuracy and timeliness of DUI conviction data sent to DMV should be finished, and its findings used in conjunction of this study’s findings to enable the implementation of recommendations from NHTSA’s 2011 California Traffic Records Assessment. |
V | |
| 243 | 2013/ 01 |
2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this twenty-second annual legislatively-mandated report, 2010 and 2011 DUI data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents crosstabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions, and alcohol-involved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested in each year over a time period of 21 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 1994. Two analyses were conducted to evaluate if referrals to DUI programs were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent violations and crashes among those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving, and if referrals to the 9-month DUI program were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent violations and crashes when compared to referrals to the 3-month DUI program among first DUI offenders. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2010, who were referred, enrolled, and completed DUI programs are also presented. |
V | |
| 251 | 2016/ 06 |
AB 91: Specific Deterrent Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in CaliforniaThis study presents an evaluation of the specific deterrence effects of California’s ignition interlock pilot program mandated by AB 91 to operate in four California counties — Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare — from July 1, 2010 to January 1, 2016. This study is a follow-up to an earlier legislatively-mandated general deterrence evaluation of AB 91’s IID pilot program. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the specific deterrent capacity of AB 91’s IID pilot program, that is, whether it led to reductions in DUI recidivism and crashes among DUI offenders. Results show that, while the AB 91 pilot program can be associated with reductions in DUI recidivism among specific DUI offender groups, it is also associated with an increase in subsequent crashes among all first DUI offenders in AB 91 pilot counties and among all DUI offenders who installed an IID and obtained an AB 91 IID-restricted driver license. Although the reduction in DUI recidivism provides evidence of benefits associated with IID restrictions, the increased crash risks associated with the AB 91 pilot program suggest that additional investigation and research could be beneficial. Inclusion of information regarding crash responsibility (i.e. at-fault/not-at-fault), alcohol involvement, or severity level (i.e. fatal/injury crashes vs property-damage only crashes) may provide further insight. The report recommends to (1) evaluate California's incentive IID program mandated under Senate Bill 598, (2) conduct and report to the Legislature a quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of current or potential DUI countermeasures (including IIDs) and their combined use, (3) explore the option of using IIDs as an “alcohol-abstinence-compliance” monitoring tool, as part of a modified version of the traditional DUI court model, and (4) convene a task force to develop recommendations for strengthening components of California's comprehensive DUI countermeasure system. |
V | |
| 249 | 2014/ 10 |
Evaluation of Law Enforcement Use of Driver License Card Readers to Improve Detection of Suspended and Revoked Drivers at DUI/License CheckpointsIntroduction. Driving privilege suspension and revocation are known to improve traffic safety, but research suggests the majority of suspended or revoked (SR) drivers continue to drive while they are SR. These drivers are about three times more likely to be involved in crashes and to cause a fatal crash. In most U.S. states, drivers arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) are subject to immediate driver license (DL) card confiscation by law enforcement. Drivers SR for other reasons are typically mailed notices directing them to surrender their DL cards to the licensing agency, yet they frequently do not comply. At DUI checkpoints in California, and many other U.S. states, law enforcement officers briefly inspect drivers’ DL cards and check for signs of intoxication. Hence, such checkpoints are deemed DUI/License status checkpoints. Previous research found that about 41% of SR drivers contacted at such checkpoints avoided detection for SR driving because they illegally retained possession of their DL cards. In this study, DL card readers with the capacity to identify and alert officers to drivers with SR statuses were used at the checkpoints. The purpose was to evaluate the utility of implementing this type of technology on a broader scale. Method. Checkpoint police officers used DL card readers that contained lists of SR drivers that would alert if a card was scanned that matched a DL number on the list. Data for 13,530 drivers were recorded. Subsequently, license statuses of contacted drivers were verified and compared to checkpoint citation records. Results. About 3% (n=384) of drivers contacted at the checkpoints were SR. Seventy-one percent of them were detected and cited for driving while SR. There were no differences in detection rate as a function of the suspension/revocation reasons. Significant differences were found in detection rate as a function of whether drivers’ DL numbers were on the SR list. Conclusion. SR drivers’ ability to pass undetected through DUI/License checkpoints weakens both the specific and general SR driving deterrence of checkpoints, and may diminish the effectiveness of suspension and revocation for reducing the crash risk posed by problem drivers. These findings show that despite technical limitations, a list-based DL card reader can improve the detection rate of SR drivers by law enforcement. Future studies that evaluate scanning technologies capable of real-time license validity verification are warranted. |
V | |
| 259 | 2020/ 01 |
2018 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this twenty-seventh annual legislatively-mandated report, 2015 and 2016 driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents crosstabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, postconviction sanctions, driver license suspension/revocation actions, and on drivers in alcohol-or drug-involved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested in each year over a time period of 26 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 2005. An analysis was conducted to evaluate if referrals to the 9-month DUI program were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent DUI incidents and crashes when compared to referrals to the 3- month DUI program among first DUI offenders. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2015, who were referred, enrolled, and completed DUI programs are also presented. Additionally, the numbers and percentages of DUI offenders who installed ignition interlock devices are presented by county and DUI offender status. |
V | |
| 250 | 2015/ 01 |
2015 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this twenty-fourth annual legislatively-mandated report, 2012 and 2013 driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents crosstabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions, and alcohol- or druginvolved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested in each year over a time period of 23 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 1994. Two analyses were conducted to evaluate if referrals to DUI programs were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent violations and crashes among those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol- or drug-related reckless driving, and if referrals to the 9-month DUI program were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent violations and crashes when compared to referrals to the 3-month DUI program among first DUI offenders. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2012, who were referred, enrolled, and completed DUI programs are also presented. |
V | |
| NRN067 | 1971/ 10 |
An Optimum System for Traffic Enforcement/Driver Control-Volumes I through IIIThis study was conducted in response to a 1968 Senate Resolution (SR 160) which directed the California Department of Motor Vehicles to make an in-depth study of functions performed by state traffic enforcement/ driver control agencies. |
V | |
| NRN070 | 1976/ 04 |
Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Offenses in California: A Feasibility StudyTo comply with Senate Concurrent Resolution 40 (1975 Resolution Chapter 86), which mandated a feasibility study of administrative adjudication of traffic infractions. |
V |