A DMV Study Confirms Traffic School Works—So Why Was the Industry Never Told?

In August 2021, the California Department of Motor Vehicles published a comprehensive research report evaluating the effectiveness of California’s Traffic Violator School (TVS) program following the implementation of Assembly Bill 2499. The report—AB 2499: A Traffic Safety Evaluation of California’s Traffic Violator School Masked Conviction Program—was authored by the DMV’s own Research and Development Branch.

Despite the importance of its findings, this study was never meaningfully shared with the Traffic Violator School industry.

The report recently came to light through the independent research efforts of a California Alliance for Road Safety (CARS) member school. What it reveals is something traffic safety educators have long known—but have rarely seen formally acknowledged by the Department:

Traffic school works.

What the DMV’s Own Research Found

According to the DMV’s evaluation, the post-AB 2499 TVS program is associated with measurable improvements in traffic safety outcomes. Drivers who attended Traffic Violator School experienced statistically significant reductions in both subsequent traffic crashes and future citations compared to similarly situated drivers who received standard convictions.

The DMV estimated that the current TVS structure:

• Prevents more than 1,100 traffic crashes each year

• Saves approximately $63 million annually in economic crash costs

These are not marginal findings. They are substantial, data-driven outcomes drawn from hundreds of thousands of California driver records and analyzed using advanced statistical methods.

Even more importantly, the report does not stop at validating the current program—it goes further.

DMV Recommendations: Expand Education-Based Interventions

The study explicitly recommends expanding and enhancing traffic school–style educational interventions, including:

• Better integration of TVS education with post-license control programs

• Customized curriculum for repeat violators and higher-risk driver groups

• Use of education as a proactive behavioral modification tool—not just a diversion option

In other words, the DMV’s own research supports the idea that education should play a larger role in California’s traffic safety framework—a position long advocated by traffic safety educators.

The Transparency Problem

Given the significance of these findings, the lack of transparency is troubling.

A DMV-commissioned study that demonstrates the effectiveness of Traffic Violator School programs—and supports expanding educational interventions—should have been shared with traffic safety educators, courts, and industry stakeholders. Instead, traffic schools were largely excluded from the conversation, even as policy decisions continued to be made that directly affect TVS programs statewide.

This absence of transparency raises important questions:

• Why wasn’t this report proactively shared with the industry it evaluates?

• Why were traffic safety educators left out of discussions about findings that directly validate their work?

• How many other policy decisions are being shaped without industry input, despite clear evidence of effectiveness?

Why CARS Exists

This is exactly why the California Alliance for Road Safety (CARS) was formed.

CARS exists to ensure that traffic safety educators have a unified, informed, and credible voice in discussions about research, regulation, and legislation. When positive data exists—and is not shared—our role is to bring it forward, contextualize it, and ensure it informs policy.

This study is especially important as CARS works to advance legislation that would require traffic school attendance for every individual receiving a citation in California. The DMV’s own research now supports what the industry has long maintained: education changes behavior, reduces recidivism, and saves lives.

A state-published report from August 2021 that affirms the value of Traffic Violator School—yet remained largely undisclosed to the industry—makes one thing clear: traffic safety educators must advocate for themselves.