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
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IR1 | 1987/ 08 |
Use of Proxy Measures in Evaluating Post licensing Control TreatmentsTo describe and evaluate the usefulness of alternative (accident proxy) measures in traffic safety studies. |
III | |
| IM5 | 1981/ 11 |
Use Tax SurveyTo compare reported purchase prices in use-tax transactions with wholesale Kelley Blue Book prices, in order to determine whether purchasers of used vehicles from private parties tended to underreport the amount they paid. |
VII | |
| IM4 | 1981/ 07 |
An Estimate of the Rate at Which Vehicle Values Depreciate for Use in Calculating Vehicle License FeesTo determine how much vehicle license fee (VLF) revenue is lost due to the VLF depreciation structure underestimating the actual retail value of used vehicles. |
VII | |
| IM3 | 1981/ 06 |
Multiple Sales Use Tax SurveyTo determine loss in use tax resulting from unreported vehicle transfers. |
VII | |
| IM1 | 1993/ 09 |
Pilot of the Driving Performance EvaluationTo determine the consistency of the test examiners in scoring the Driving Performance Evaluation (DPE) drive test. |
II | |
| 53a | 1976/ 06 |
1976 Language Survey – Follow-up to 1975 Field Office SurveyTo conduct another survey like the 1975 language survey (report no. 53) to determine the number of non-English-speaking persons attempting to utilize services provided at DMV facilities. This survey to be conducted at selected offices to enable management to put customer communication needs into a better perspective. |
VII | |
| 265 | 2025/ 06 |
Recidivism and Crash Risk Among California’s Drug-Involved DUI OffendersThe present study builds upon prior work by Marowitz (1996) by examining the crash and recidivism risk of alcohol-focused versus drug-involved driving under the influence (DUI) offenders. Although drug-involved DUI offenders remain a relatively small proportion of all DUI offenders, this proportion is rising, as is the proportion of impaired-driving fatal crashes involving drugs. Using a cohort of offenders arrested during calendar years 2014 through 2017, comparisons were drawn for the one-year periods pre- and post-arrest. Drug-involved offenders tended to have more problematic driving histories in the year prior to their index offense, as compared to alcohol-focused offenders. Even taking account of these differences in pre-arrest behavior, drug-involved offenders continued to have more problematic driving in the year subsequent to their index offense: they were twice as likely to be involved in a crash, and approximately 30% more likely to recidivate. A particularly powerful predictor of recidivism was whether or not a pre-conviction administrative per se (APS) license suspension – only available in instances where an offender is above the per se blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit or refuses a chemical test – was imposed. Offenders convicted of a DUI offense, but against whom no APS license action was initiated, were more than three times as likely to recidivate compared to offenders against whom an APS action was taken. |
||
| 264 | 2025/ 10 |
32nd Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this thirty-second annual legislatively mandated report, 2020 and 2021 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 31 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves for the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 2014. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2020 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. |
||
| 263 | 2023/ 04 |
2022 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this thirty-first annual legislatively mandated report, 2019 and 2020 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 30 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves for the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 2005. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2019 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 | |
| 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 |