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:
Departamento de Vehículos Motorizados
Research and Development Branch
2415 1st Ave. Mail Station: F-126
Sacramento, CA 95818
(916) 914-8125
Note Please include the report number, the number of copies requested, and your name, address, and phone number.
| Report ID | Date Published | Title | Section | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 175 | 1998/ 07 |
Administrative Per Se (APS) Set Aside Process AnalysisEach year, something less than three quarters of drivers arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in California are actually convicted of the offense, and often only after long delays following their arrest. |
V | |
| 179 | 1999/ 01 |
1999 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this eighth annual legislatively mandated report, 1996 and 1997 DUI data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data and monitoring system. This report presents crosstabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions and alcoholinvolved accidents. In addition, this report provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative court and administrative sanctions (including alcohol treatment programs and license actions) upon the 1-year postconviction records of first and second DUI offenders over a time period of seven years. The postconviction driving records of second DUI offenders arrested in 1994, and 1996 were evaluated three- and one-year periods, respectively. |
V | |
| 185 | 2000/ 01 |
2000 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this ninth annual legislatively mandated report, 1997 and 1998 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 accidents. In addition, this report provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative court and administrative sanctions (including alcohol treatment programs and license actions) upon the 1-year postconviction records of first and second DUI offenders over a time period of eight years. The postconviction driving records of second DUI offenders arrested in 1995 and 1997 were evaluated for three- and one-year periods, respectively. |
V | |
| 191 | 2002/ 01 |
2002 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this eleventh annual legislatively mandated report, 1999 and 2000 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 alcoholinvolved accidents. In addition, this report provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative court and administrative sanctions (including alcohol treatment programs and license actions) upon the 1-year postconviction records of first and second DUI offenders over a time period of ten years. The postconviction driving records of second DUI offenders arrested in 1997 and 1999 were evaluated for 3- and 1-year periods, respectively. An additional analysis was conducted on the effectiveness of alcohol education programs upon the 1-year post conviction records of those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving. |
V | |
| 193 | 2002/ 01 |
Department of Motor Vehicles Post-Licensing Control Management Information System Fiscal Year 2000/2001An early Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) study (Poon, 1979) described the need for operational process measures to be tracked over time to provide departmental management with objective measures for assessing the success of departmental operations in meeting management expectations. |
V | |
| 195 | 2002/ 05 |
AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK IN CALIFORNIACalifornia law requires judges to sentence offenders convicted of driving on a DUI-suspended driver license (DWS-DUI) to install an ignition interlock device (IID) on any vehicle that they own or operate. In addition, repeat DUI offenders can reduce their suspension period by half and obtain a restricted license by installing an IID. This report presents the results of a process study of the degree to which California’s IID laws have been implemented. The process evaluation consists of several components. DWS-DUI and DUI offenders were tracked through law enforcement, DMV, court and ignition installer records to obtain data on rates of DWS convictions, court-IID orders, IID installations and offender success on the IID program. In addition, DMV records were utilized to obtain data on court-IID orders throughout the state, over time and jurisdictions. Finally, judges, district/city attorneys and offenders were surveyed to obtain data on barriers to the use of IIDs, and attitudes and opinions of the devices. The results of the process studies showed that DWS conviction rates were less than 20%, courtIID order rates for DWS-DUI convictees, for whom such an order is required by law, were only about 25%, and only a minority of offenders ordered to install a device complied and installed an interlock. In addition, relatively few repeat DUI offenders chose to obtain a restricted license by installing an IID. While some recommendations are made for improving the current IID countermeasure system, it is strongly recommended that the current IID laws remain unchanged until the r |
V | |
| 56 | 1976/ 06 |
Driving Record and Recidivism Following the Purging of Driver Control Action FilesTo evaluate adequacy of the department's driver action purge policies by analyzing the subsequent driving record of subjects whose files had been previously purged. |
V | |
| NRN069 | 1976/ 01 |
Comprehensive Long Range PlanTo summarize the department's plans for improving its effectiveness and service to the public, using a management-by-objectives (MBO) approach and moving beyond the two-year budget cycle in planning. |
V | |
| 262 | 2022/ 05 |
2021 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this thirtieth annual legislatively mandated report, 2018 and 2019 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 cross-tabulated 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 each year over a period of 29 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves for the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 2005. Two analyses were conducted to evaluate if referrals to alcohol and drug education programs were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent DUI incidents 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 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 2018, who were referred to, enrolled in, 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 | |
| 261 | 2021/ 07 |
2020 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this twenty-ninth annual legislatively-mandated report, 2017 and 2018 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 cross-tabulated 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 28 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 2017, who were referred to, enrolled in, 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 |