Officers Al Barber –Chairman,CEO
Don Hudson –ViceChairman
Buster Barber –President
Mark Momtahan –VicePresident
Brad Barber –CFO
Matthew Momtahan –Secretary
BoardMembers Al Barber –Barber’sDrivingSchool
Don Hudson –VicePresidentandChiefCounsel–RoadmasterDriversSchool
Jeffery Burkhardt –Ancora–SrDirectorofOperations–CommercialDriverTraining
Brad Barber –RetiredCampusPresident,GeorgiaDrivingAcademy
Buster Barber –Barber’sDrivingSchool
Mark Momtahan –WestMetroDrivingSchool
Mike Marcos –COOofA1DrivingSchools
Kathy Watts –PresidentofNewLondonSchoolofDriving
Gary Strube –CampusPresident,GeorgiaDrivingAcademy
Ed Tanksley –KatlawTruckDrivingSchool
DearMembersoftheGeorgiaHouseofRepresentativesandSenate:
Modernizing Georgia's Alcohol and Drug Risk Reduction Program (DUI) and Driver Improvement Programs (DDC): A Public Safety and Fiscal Imperative Everyday,thousandsofdedicatedprofessionalsacrossGeorgiadeliverRiskReductionandDriverImprovementprograms thatserveascriticalinterventionsforat-riskdrivers.Theseprogramsrepresentthefinaleducationalopportunityto preventrepeatoffenses,reducerecidivism,andultimatelysavelivesonourroads.
Werespectfullybringbeforeyouacomprehensivemodernizationinitiativedesignedtoalignthesevitalprogramswith currenteducationalscience,technologicalcapabilities,andfiscalresponsibility whilemaintainingGeorgia'scommitment topublicsafetyexcellence.
The Need for Modernization Despitesignificantadvancesintechnologyanddrivereducationmethodology,portionsofourcurrentsystemremain anchoredtooutdatedstructuresthatincreasecostsforGeorgiacitizenswithoutcorrespondingimprovementsinsafety outcomes.Thismodernizationisnotmerelyadministrativereform itisastrategicinvestmentinpublicsafetyand consumerprotection.
Initiative Foundation Thisproposalreflectsyearsoffrontlineproviderexperience,stakeholdercollaboration,andcoordinationwithregulatory partners.Theinitiativeadvancesthreecoreobjectives:
1. EnhancedEducationalEffectiveness Applyingcurrentresearchandprovenmethodologiestoimprovelearning outcomes
2. StrengthenedAccountability Implementingtransparentoversightmechanismsandperformancestandards
3. ReducedFinancialBurden Eliminatingunnecessarycoststhatdonotcontributetodriverbehaviorimprovement
Expected Outcomes Evidence-basedinterventionprogramsreducerecidivism.Reducedrecidivismsaveslives.Byremovingsystemic inefficiencies,weensureresourcesremainconcentratedoninstructionquality,programaccountability,andmeasurable safetyimprovements.
CALL TO LEGISLATIVE ACTION We respectfully request your support for:
Senate Bill 473 Thesemeasuresarepractical,data-driven,anddesignedtostrengthenthesystemservingGeorgia'scitizenswhile supportingtheprofessionalswhodeliverthesecriticalprogramsdaily. Wewelcometheopportunitytobriefyourofficeonspecificprovisions,cost-benefitanalysis,andimplementationtimelines. Ourteamstandsreadytoprovidetechnicalassistance,answerquestions,andcollaborateonlegislativelanguagethat achievestheseessentialgoals.
Progress Requires Legislative Leadership Georgia'sdriversafetyprogramshaveservedourstatewell thismodernizationensurestheycontinuetodoso effectively,efficiently,andequitablyfordecadestocome. Thankyouforyourconsiderationandcontinuedcommitmenttopublicsafety.Welookforwardtoworkingwithyouto advancethisimportantinitiative.
Respectfullysubmitted,
Al Barber alfredrbarber@gmail.com Chairman & CEO, GeorgiaDrivingSchoolAssociation
706-442-8100
INTRODUCTION TO OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Georgia Driving School Association TheGeorgiaDrivingSchoolAssociation(GDSA) presentsthisLegislativeAgendawithoneclear purpose:tomodernizeGeorgia’sDriver ImprovementandDUIRiskReductionsystemsin awaythatstrengthenspublicsafety,improves educationaleffectiveness,andkeepsrequired programsfinanciallyattainableforthecitizenswe serve.
Acentralprioritythisyearistheeliminationof thepre-classassessmentintheDUIRisk ReductionProgram.Independentresearch conductedforGDSAbyDr.OrionMowbrayofthe UniversityofGeorgiaconfirmsthatGeorgia’sfront -endassessmentisduplicative,addsunnecessary cost,anddoesnotimproveinstructionalor interventionoutcomes.Thestudyfurtherfinds thatmoststatesintegratescreeningintoclinical evaluationratherthanrequiringaseparatefrontendassessment.Thefullresearchreportis availableatGeorgiaDrivingSchoolAssociation.org.
Thesecondmajorpriorityisreformingtheprice oftheDUIRiskReductionworkbook.Foryears, Georgiastudentshavepaidmillionsofdollarstoa singlevendor,PreventionResearchInstitute (PRI),foraworkbookpricedfaraboveitscostof production.Thispricingstructureisinconsistent withacceptedregulatorycost-accounting guidelinesandisthepredictableresultofa monopolymarket.Ourproposaltoreducethe workbookpriceto$15alignspricingwithactual productioncostswhilepreservingcurriculum integrity.
Atthesametime,GDSArecognizesthat modernizationmustbalanceaffordabilitywith programsustainability.Aseparateproposal introducedlastyearsoughttoincreasetotalDUI tuitionto$500whilemaintainingthe$25 workbookfee.Whilewell-intended,sucha dramaticincreaseisnotpractical.Itwouldprice manyparticipantsoutofcompliance,increase unlicenseddriving,andencouragenew competitionintoanalreadydilutedandshrinking
market destabilizingexistingschoolswithout improvingsafetyoutcomes.
TheGDSAapproachisdifferent.Weproposea modesttuitionadjustmentfrom$360to$395, pairedwithareductioninunnecessaryexpenses. Byworkingonbothsidesoftheequation slightlyincreasinginstructionalinvestmentwhile eliminatingexcessivefees wedeliverastronger educationalproduct,improvedintervention outcomes,andaprogramthatremainsfinancially attainableforGeorgiafamilies.
ThisLegislativeAgendaalsoaddresses modernizationofprogramdeliverythrough codifyinginstructor-ledonlinetrainingforDUI RiskReductionandDriverImprovementcourses. Mostlicensedschoolshavealreadyinvestedin thismodernizationandreportincreasedstudent participation.Forexample,someschoolsare reportingthatupto17%oftheirRiskReduction studentsarecomingfromout-of-state participants.Asmorestatesadoptonline instructor-lededucation,out-of-stateproviders willincreasinglycompeteforGeorgiastudents. CodifyingonlineinstructionnowensuresGeorgia schoolsremaincompetitiveinarapidlyevolving nationalmarket.
Finally,closingthelong-standingplea-bargain loopholethatcurrentlyallowsDUI-arrested driverstoregaindrivingprivilegeswithout completingtheRiskReductionProgramwill increaseparticipationbyanestimated16,000 additionalstudentsperyear approximatelya 40%expansionofthecurrentmarket.This restorestheoriginalintentofGeorgia’sDUI statutesbyensuringeducationandintervention beforeimpaireddriversreturntotheroad.
Thisagendareflectsreal-worldexperiencefrom theschoolsthatdelivertheseserviceseveryday. Ourproposalsreducewaste,modernizedelivery, closestatutorygaps,andstrengthenprogram effectiveness whilesupportingtheoperational sustainabilityoflicensedschoolsandadvancing publicsafetyforallGeorgians.
2026 Modernization The Georgia Driving School Association (GDSA) isleadingacomprehensive2026Legislative ModernizationInitiativetostrengthenGeorgia’sregulateddrivingprograms,removeoutdatedbarriers,and restorestabilitytotheDUIRiskReductionandDriverImprovementdistributionchannel.
Thisinitiativeisnotatemporaryfix.Itisaresearch-basedmodernizationeffortdesignedtoimprovepublic safety,expandaccess,andensuretheseprogramsremainviable,consistent,andeffectivestatewide.
1. Evidence-Based Removal of the Front-End Assessment
Eliminatesaduplicativefront-endassessmentthatresearchshowsaddscostanddelaywithouta demonstratedpublic-safetybenefit,whilepreservingclinicallyappropriateevaluationswhenwarranted.
Result: Eliminatesanunnecessary $38 assessment cost tothestudent.
2. Research-Based Authorization of Instructor-Led Online Training
AlignsGeorgiawithnationalbestpracticesandindependentresearchsupportinginstructor-ledonlineDUI andDefensiveDrivingeducation,withappropriateoversight,accountability,andcompliance.
3. Why Defensive Driving Tuition Needs Updating
Modernizesoutdatedtuitioncapstoreflectreal-worldoperatingcosts,allowingDefensiveDriving programstoremainaccessible,effective,andfinanciallysustainable.
Current Tuition: $95→ Proposed Tuition: $125
4. Modernize DUI Risk Reduction tuition while reducing external cost burdens
Stabilizeprogramdeliverythroughmodesttuitionadjustmentspairedwithtargetedcostreductions,rather thancontinuedrelianceonadd-onfeesandthird-partycharges.
Current Tuition: $360→ Proposed Tuition: $395
5. Correct monopoly pricing in required program materials
Ensuresmandatedstudentmaterialsarepricedbasedonreasonable,cost-basedstandardsratherthan legacymonopolypricing.
Workbook Price: $25→ $15
6. Close the DUI plea-bargain loophole
RestoresconsistencyandaccountabilitybyrequiringprogramcompletionwhenDUIchargesarereduced, ensuringuniformapplicationofthelaw.
Thesereformsaresupportedbyindependentuniversityresearch,legalanalysis,andnationalbest-practice comparisons.Together,theystrengthenoversight,reduceunnecessaryparticipantcosts,stabilizeprogram delivery,andprotectthelong-termhealthofGeorgia’sregulateddrivingprograms whilemaintaininga strongcommitmenttopublicsafety.
MYTH vs. FACT Instructor-Led Online DUI Risk Reduction Programs
Separating Perception from Evidence
Prepared for Policymakers and Legislative Review
Thisdocumentaddressescommonmyths surroundinginstructor-ledonlineAlcoholand DrugRiskReductionPrograms.Eachmythis followedbyfact-basedclarificationgroundedin experience,marketdata,andresearch.The purposeistoensurepolicydecisionsaredriven byevidence,fairness,andpublicsafety not stigmaornostalgia.
Myth 1: “Most DUI students are drinking during online classes.”
FACT:
Someindividualswithsubstance-usedisordersmayappear impairedregardlessofwhetherinstructionoccursonlineor inperson.Thishasalwaysexistedandis not a consequence of online delivery.
Impairmentisidentifiedprimarilythrough behavioral indicators,notsmell.Manysubstancesproducenoodor, andevenalcoholimpairmentisnotreliablydetectableby scentalone.Instructor-ledonlineplatformsallow instructorsto observe behavior closely, document concerns in real time, and immediately remove an impaired participant inacontrolled,non-confrontationalmanner.
Thisapproachis safer and more effective thanattempting physicalremovalfromanin-personclassroom,whichcan escalatesituationsordisruptotherparticipants. Policyshouldaddressimpairmentthrough clear instructor authority and enforcement protocols,notassumptions aboutdeliverymethods.
Myth 2: “Instructor-led online classes will put small schools out of business.”
FACT:
Marketdilutionexisted long before online instruction, particularlyinruralareaswhereprogramsoftenstruggled tomeetminimumenrollmentthresholds.
Instructor-ledonlinedeliveryhashelpedmany small and locally owned schools survive byallowingthemto:
Reachstudentsacrosscountyandstatelines
Combineparticipantsfrommultiplejurisdictions
Reducefixedoverheadwhilemaintaininginstructional quality
Theunderlyingchallengeis market oversaturation,not onlineeducation.Eliminatinginstructor-ledonlinedelivery woulddisproportionatelyharmsmallschoolsbyremoving oneofthefewtoolstheyhavetoremainviable.
Myth 3: “This problem only affects rural markets.”
FACT:
Marketsaturationis not limited to rural Georgia Oversaturationexistsinmetropolitanareasaswell,where multipleproviderscompeteforafinitenumberofeligible participants.
Forexample, Columbus, Georgia oncehad seven DUI providers competing for a market producing only 50–100 potential students per month.Thiscompetitive imbalanceexisted before online instruction andreflected structuralmarketconditionsratherthandeliveryformat.
Restrictinginstructor-ledonlineeducationdoesnothingto correctoversaturationandinstead limits schools’ ability to adapt toexistingmarketrealities.
Myth 4: “If we eliminate online instruction, schools will return to normal.”
FACT:
Thereisnoreturntoapre-COVIDeducationalenvironment. Technology adoption in education is permanent,across K-12,highereducation,workforcetraining,andprofessional licensing.
Therelevantpolicyquestionisnotwhetheronline educationexists,butwhether Georgia-based programs will be allowed to compete usingmodern,evidence-based deliverymodels.
Eliminatinginstructor-ledonlineDUIeducationwouldplace Georgiaschoolsatacompetitivedisadvantage,reduce accessforparticipants,andincreasethelikelihoodthat outof-state providers fill the gap
Myth 5: “Online instruction only benefits large or out-of-state providers.”
FACT:
Georgia’sAlcoholandDrugRiskReductionProgram operateswithinasystemof reciprocal recognition across all 50 states.Thismeans every Georgia-licensed program notjustlargeproviders hastheabilitytoserveout-of-state participants.
Inpractice,onlinedeliveryhasalreadyproventobea competitive equalizer forin-stateproviders.Inonerecent
month, 17% of a Georgia school’s enrollment came from students residing outside Georgia.Restrictinginstructor -ledonlinedeliverywouldnotprotectlocalprograms;it would push students toward out-of-state providers that arenotsubjecttoGeorgia’sregulatoryoversight,resultingin lostrevenueanddiminishedlocalcontrol.
Aseducationpolicycontinuestoevolve,Georgiahasalready seenthispatterninotherregulatedtrainingsectors such as forklift and workforce safety programs whereonline instructionbecameastandarddeliverymethodonce researchsupporteditseffectiveness.WhenGeorgiafailedto modernizeinthoseareas, external providers quickly filled the gap
RepeatingthismistakeinDUIeducationwouldplace Georgia’sin-stateschools,technicalcolleges,andtraining institutionsatadisadvantageandinvitefurther out-of-state encroachment into Georgia’s education market
Policydecisionsabouteducationdeliveryshouldbeforward -looking,evidence-based,andprotectiveofGeorgia’s instructionalinfrastructure notreactionarylimitations thatunderminein-stateproviders.
Myth 6: “This risk is hypothetical.” FACT:
RevenuelossestoGeorgia’sin-statedrivereducation industryreachedashighas $23 million,asmostparticipants weredivertedtoout-of-stateprovidersusingadelivery modellatershowntoprovidelittletonoeducationalvalue.
Theselossesdidnotimpactprivatedrivingschoolsalone. Georgia technical colleges, local school systems,and high school driver education programs allofwhichgenerate in-staterevenueandsupportGeorgiajobs weredirectly affectedbythisshift.
RepeatingthismistakewiththeAlcoholandDrugRisk ReductionProgramwouldbeshort-sightedand economicallydamaging.Unlikethepriordrivereducation model, instructor-led online DUI education is supported by credible research,maintainsaccountability,and keepsprogramdelivery andrevenue withinGeorgia.
Failuretomodernizeappropriatelywouldagainopenthe doorto out-of-state encroachment,furthereroding Georgia-basededucationalinstitutions,publicprograms, andthestate’sregulatedtraininginfrastructure.
Myth 7: “DUI programs require stricter treatment than other driving programs.”
FACT:
TheAlcoholandDrugRiskReductionProgramisthe only regulated driving education program beingsingledout forrestrictionsoninstructor-ledonlinedelivery.
Teendrivereducation,defensivedriving,anddriver improvementprograms serving more than 120,000 participants annually ofwhichapproximately80,000 aredeliveredonlinesuccessfullyandwithoutcomparable concern.Notably,theDriverImprovementProgram addresses serious and dangerous driving behaviors, includingrecklessdriving,hit-and-run,andvehicular homicide.
ManyDUIparticipantsalsoattenddriverimprovement programs,yetonlyDUIeducationissubjecttoheightened restrictions.Thisinconsistencyreflects stigma and perception rather than evidence andcreates unnecessarydisparitywithinGeorgia’sregulatory framework.
Inpractice,adultparticipantsintheAlcoholandDrugRisk ReductionProgramdemonstratea higher level of attention, motivation, and anticipation thanyoungerteendrivers. DUIparticipantsaretypicallyengagedduetoimmediate legal,financial,andpersonalconsequencestiedtolicense reinstatementandcompliance.
Bycontrast,maintainingsustainedattentionamong teenagerspresentschallengesregardlessofdelivery format whetherinstructionoccursonline,athome,orina traditionalclassroomsetting.
Policyshouldthereforebeguidedby facts, participant behavior, outcomes, and fairness not stigma or assumptions about delivery methods
Myth 8: “DUI education is punishment.” FACT:
DUIeducationisnotpunishment.Punishmentcomesfrom arrest,courtproceedings,fines,incarceration,andlicense suspension.DUIRiskReductionprogramsareeducational, designedtoprovideinformationandawareness not treatment.
Conclusion Policy Reality TheAlcoholandDrugRiskReductionProgram shouldbegovernedby evidence, outcomes, accountability, and fairness,notassumptions rootedinstigmaoroutdatedviewsofeducation delivery.
Modernizationdoesnotweakenoversight it preserves Georgia’s in-state training infrastructure whilealigningpolicywithhow educationisdeliveredtoday,andfairnesswithout compromisingpublicsafety.
ThefollowinginitiativesrequirestatutorychangestoGeorgialawortargetedadjustmentstotheDepartmentofDriverServices’feesettingauthority.Eachproposalisdesignedtoreduceunnecessarystudentcosts,modernizeprogramdelivery,improvetransparency, strengthenmarketfairness,andmaintainpublicsafetyandprogramintegrity whileensuringthelong-termsustainabilityofGeorgia’s regulateddrivingschools.
1 - Eliminate the Pre-Class Assessment Rationale
WhenGeorgiafirstintroducedthepre-classassessment,itspurposewastosteerstudentsintodifferentprogramlengths.Legislative reformlatercreatedasingle20-hourRiskReductionProgram,makingthelegislatureitselfthesteeringmechanismandeliminatingthe assessment’soriginalpurpose.Despitethis,theassessmentremained largelytopreservevendorrevenue eventhoughresearch showsitdoesnotimproveeducationaloutcomes.
Today,assessmenttoolsaremoreappropriatelyusedlaterintheprogramforself-reflectionorbylicensedclinicalevaluatorswhen treatmentplacementisnecessary.Amandatorypre-classassessmentnolongerservesaneducationalorpublic-safetyfunction.
This proposal:
•Removesthemandatorypre-classassessment
•Eliminatesthe$8.00per-studentassessmentfee
•Eliminatesthe$30.00per-studentrebatefeetotheState
•SimplifiesadministrationforschoolsandDDS
•Reducesstudentcostswithoutdiminishingprogrameffectiveness
Intent
Toeliminateanoutdatedandunnecessaryexpensewhilepreservingappropriateclinicalevaluationauthority.
2 - Authorize Instructor-Led Online Training Rationale
Since2020,Georgiaschoolshavesuccessfullydeliveredinstructor-ledonlinetrainingundertemporaryauthorization.Experiencehas proventhatliveZoomorWebExinstructionpreservesreal-timeinteraction,instructoroversight,andaccountability while dramaticallyimprovingaccessforrural,working,andmobility-restrictedparticipants.
Concernsaboutinappropriatestudentbehaviorexistinbothphysicalandvirtualclassrooms.Onlinedeliveryprovidessaferandmore controlledinterventiontools,allowinginstructorstoisolateorremovedisruptiveparticipantsinstantlywithoutphysicalconfrontation animportantsafetyconsiderationformanyinstructors.
Behaviormanagement notphysicallocation determinesinstructionalintegrity.
This proposal:
•Permitsinstructor-ledZoom/WebExdeliveryforDUIRiskReduction
•Permitsinstructor-ledZoom/WebExdeliveryforDriverImprovement
•Expandsstatewideaccess
•Maintainsreal-timeinstructoraccountability
Intent
Tomodernizeprogramdeliveryusingproventechnologywhilepreservingsafety,engagement,andinstructionaloversight.
3 - Modernize the Driver Improvement (Defensive Driving) Program Rationale
TheDriverImprovementProgramhasnotseentuitionmodernizationinmanyyearsdespiterisingoperatingcostsandadvancementsin instructionaldelivery.Onlineinstructor-ledtraininghasdemonstratedstrongeffectivenessandaccountabilitywhileexpanding statewideaccess.
Amodesttuitionadjustmentallowsschoolstosustainhigh-qualityinstructionwithoutshiftingcoststostudentsthroughhiddenfees.
This proposal:
•IncreasesDriverImprovementtuitionfrom$95.00to$125.00
•Codifiesinstructor-ledonlinedelivery
•Preservesinstructoraccountability
•Expandsstatewideaccess
Intent
Tomodernizeprogrampricinganddeliveryinalignmentwithcurrentinstructionalrealitiesandstatewideaccessneeds.
4 - Modernize DUI Risk Reduction Tuition Rationale
Previousproposalstoraisetuitionto$500failedduetoaffordabilityconcerns.TheGDSAapproachbalancesmodesttuition modernizationwitheliminationofunnecessaryexternalcosts improvingschoolsustainabilitywithoutreducingenrollment.
Byremovingthepre-classassessmentexpenseandreducingtheworkbookfee,totaltuitioncanbemodernizedwhileremaining accessible.
This proposal:
•Setstheinstructionalandinterventioncomponentat$380.00
•Setstheworkbookfeeat$15.00
•Establishestotaltuitionat$395.00perstudent
Intent
Tomodernizetuitionwhilestrengtheningfinancialstabilityofregulatedschoolswithoutcreatingaffordabilitybarriers.
5 - Reduce the PRI Workbook Price Rationale
Formorethanthreedecades,thePrimeforLifecurriculumprovider(PRI)hasoperatedasamonopolysupplieroftheonlyapproved DUIRiskReductionworkbook.Broadoverhead,training,licensing,andadministrativecostshavebeenembeddedinworkbookpricing shiftinginstitutionalexpensesontostudentswithnobargainingpowerandnoalternativesupplier.
Applyingfederalcost-accountingstandardsshowsthereasonableandnecessaryworkbookpriceissubstantiallylowerthanthecurrent $25fee.Untilmarketcompetitionisintroduced,regulatorypriceoversightisnecessarytoprotectGeorgiacitizensfrommonopolistic cost-shifting.
This proposal:
•CapstheDUIRiskReductionworkbookpriceat$15.00
•BasespricingonOMB,GAAP,andFairnessofAccountingPractices
•Addressesmonopolypricingpower
•PreservesDDSauthoritytosetfairandreasonablepricing
Intent
Toprotectstudentsfrommonopolisticprice-settingwhileensuringfaircompensationforlegitimatematerialcosts.
6 Close DUI Plea-Bargain Loopholes Rationale
Georgiarecordsapproximately200,000DUIarrestsannually,yetonlyabout41,000–42,000individualscompletetheRiskReduction Programeachyear.Afteraccountingfordismissedcasesandnot-guiltyverdicts,asubstantialgapremains.
ManyoffendersavoidprogramparticipationthroughpleabargainingDUIchargesdowntolesseroffensessuchasrecklessdriving, allowinglicensereinstatementwithoutcompletingtheRiskReductionProgram.Thisinconsistentapplicationunderminespublic-safety objectivesandprogramintegrity.
ClosingthisloopholeensuresthatindividualsarrestedforDUIwhoseektoregaindrivingprivilegescompletetherequirededucation program,whilepreservingexemptionsfordismissedoracquittedcases.
This proposal:
•RequiresRiskReductioncompletionforDUI-arrestedindividualsseekinglicensereinstatement
•Appliestorestrictedlicenses,ALSpermits,andfullreinstatement
•Exemptsdismissedandnot-guiltycases
•Ensuresuniformstatewideapplication
Intent
TorestoreconsistentaccountabilityfollowingDUIarrestswhilestrengtheningroadwaysafetyandfairprogramenforcement.
7 Regulatory Fee Reform and Equitable Allocation Argument Policy Position: Regulatory Fee Reform Themosttransparentandfiscallyresponsiblesolutionistoeliminatethe$30assessmentrebateentirelyandfundDDSregulatory complianceoperationsthroughthenormallegislativeappropriationsprocess,asisdoneformoststateregulatoryagencies.Thisensures accountability,legislativeoversight,andbudgettransparencywithoutimposinghiddentaxesonasinglegroupofstudents.
However,ifaregulatoryfeemustremain,thenitmustbestructuredinawaythatislogical,fair,andequitable.
Aregulatoryfeeshould:
•Reflecttheactualcostofregulation
•Besharedacrossallregulatedprograms
•Avoidsinglingoutoneclassofstudentstosubsidizeothers
•MaintainfullfundingforDDScomplianceoperations
•Betransparenttostudentsandthepublic
Thecurrentstructure whereonlyDUIRiskReductionassessmentstudentspaya$30regulatoryremittancewhileDDScompliance activitycoversallregulatedprograms isneitherequitablenorrational.
Noregulatedpopulationshouldbeartheentirecostofregulationforunrelatedprograms.
IfDDSregulatesdrivereducation,driverimprovement,third-partytesting,andbehind-the-wheeltraining andauditsthoseprograms duringthesamecompliancevisits thenregulatoryfundingmustbesharedproportionallyamongallregulatedparticipants.
Statutory Background UnderO.C.G.A.§40-5-83.1(d),eachDUIRiskReductionProgramprovidermustremit$30fromeveryassessmentfeecollectedtothe DepartmentofDriverServicesfordepositintotheStateGeneralFund.Thesefundsarethenallocatedthroughthebudgetingprocess, primarilyto:
•TheDDSRegulatoryComplianceDivision
•TheDepartmentofBehavioralHealthandDevelopmentalDisabilities(DBHDD)
ThisstatutorystructurewascreatedwhentheDUIRiskReductionProgramwastheprimaryregulateddriver-safetyprograminGeorgia. Today,thatisnolongerthecase.
Present Regulatory Reality DDS’sRegulatoryComplianceDivisionnowoverseesmultipleregulatedprogramcategories,notjustDUIRiskReduction,including:
•Alcohol&DrugRiskReduction(DUI)
•DriverImprovement/DefensiveDriving
•DriverEducation(30-hourclassroomandvirtual)
•Behind-the-WheelTraining
•Third-PartyRoadTesting
WhenDDScomplianceofficersvisitaschoolforauditormonitoring,theyreviewallregulatedprograms,notonlyDUIRiskReduction.In practice,regulatoryoversightcostsaresharedacrossallprograms yetonlyDUIassessmentstudentsbearthefullfundingburden.
Student Volume Comparison (2025) •DUIRiskReductionCertificates:40,465
•DriverImprovement:53,162
•DriverEducation–30HourClassroom:6,266
•DriverEducation–30HourVirtual:60,566
•DriverTraining–Other:20,087
•Behind-the-Wheel:10,134
•Third-PartyTesting:20,304
TotalDDS-RegulatedStudents:210,987
Resulting Inequity
Thismeans:
•19%ofregulatedstudentsarefunding
•100%ofregulatorycomplianceoperations
ThisstructureplacesadisproportionatefinancialburdenonDUIstudents,eventhoughDDScomplianceactivityservesallregulated programsandallregulatedschoolsbenefitfromthesamemonitoring,auditing,andenforcementservices.
Illustration of Equitable Allocation (Full $30) Currentregulatoryrevenue: 40,465DUIassessments×$30=$1,213,950
Equitableper-studentregulatorycontributionifshared: $1,213,950÷210,987students=$5.76perstudent
DBHDD Allocation Issue
Underthecurrentstatutorystructure,halfofthe$30assessmentremittancecollectedfromeachDUIRiskReductionassessmentis directedthroughstatebudgetingtosupporttheDepartmentofBehavioralHealthandDevelopmentalDisabilities(DBHDD).
However:
•DBHDDdoesnotregulatedrivereducation
•DBHDDdoesnotregulatedriverimprovement
•DBHDDdoesnotregulatethird-partytesting
•DBHDDdoesnotregulatebehind-the-wheeltraining
•DBHDD’soversightroleislimitedprimarilytoclinicalevaluatorsandtreatmentproviders
Therefore,evenifaregulatoryfeestructureisretained,onlytheportionoffundingattributabletoDDSregulatorycomplianceactivities shouldbesourcedfromDDS-regulatedprogramparticipants.
Corrected DDS Regulatory Funding Requirement (DDS Portion Only)
Ifthe$30remittanceisdividedproperly:
•DBHDDportion(50%):$15.00
•DDSRegulatoryComplianceportion(50%):$15.00
ActualDDSregulatorycompliancefundingrequirement:
40,465DUIassessments×$15=$606,975
Equitable Distribution Across All DDS-Regulated Students (DDS Portion Only)
$606,975÷210,987students=$2.88perstudent
Resulting Fair and Equitable Regulatory Fee
•CurrentDUI-onlymodel:$30.00perDUIstudent
•Sharedacrossallprograms(full$30):$5.76perstudent
•Sharedacrossallprograms(DDSportiononly):$2.88perstudent
Common-Sense Principle
Ifregulationbenefitsallprograms, thenfundingregulationmustcomefromallprograms notjustone.
Closing Statement
Endingthe$30assessmentrebateandfundingDDScompliancethroughappropriationsisthecleanestsolution.Butifaregulatoryfee structureisretained,itmustbefair,proportional,transparent,andgroundedinactualoversightactivity notalegacymechanismthat placesanunfairburdenonDUIstudents.
This approach:
•Protectsstudents
•PreservesDDSfunding
•Improvespublictrust
•Alignswithsoundgovernmentalcost-allocationpractices
Key Conclusion Line
Evenifthe$30assessmentremittanceisretained,only$15supportsDDSregulatorycompliance.Whenthatamountisequitably distributedacrossall210,987DDS-regulatedstudents,theappropriateregulatorycontributionisapproximately$2.88perstudent not $30bornesolelybyDUIassessmentparticipants.
Closing Statement on Our Proposals Collectively,theseproposalsreduceunnecessarystudentcosts,modernizeoutdatedprogramstructures,close enforcementgaps,introducefairpricingoversight,andstrengthenthelong-termintegrityandsustainabilityof Georgia’sregulateddriver-trainingsystem whilemaintainingpublicsafetyastheguidingprinciple.
Our Research Partners Dr. Orion Mowbray Professor, School of Social Work (Courtesy Appointment)
Executive Director, Ralston Institute for Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities
Professor, College of Family and Consumer Sciences
Dr.OrionMowbrayisaProfessorattheUniversityofGeorgiaCollegeof FamilyandConsumerScienceandExecutiveDirectoroftheDavidRalston InstituteforBehavioralHealthandDevelopmentalDisabilities.Hiswork focusesontranslatingresearchintopracticalpolicy,practice,and regulatoryguidance.Hehaspublishedextensivelyandhasledmultiple statewideresearch,training,andsystemimprovementinitiativesfocusedonimprovingoutcomesfor Georgians.Dr.Mowbraybringsmorethan15yearsofexperienceinbehavioralhealthresearchand policyanalysis,withspecificexpertiseinsubstanceuse,mentalhealth,assessmentpractices,and systems-levelbarrierstoeffectiveprogramming.
Prof. Sarah L. Gerwig Director of Experiential Education and Professor of Law
SarahGerwigisaDirectorofExperientialEducationandProfessorat MercerUniversitySchoolofLaw,whereshepreviouslyservedasthe AssociateDeanforAcademicAffairs.Shortlyafterjoiningthelawfaculty in2006,shefoundedthenationally-recognizedHabeasProject,which providesprobonorepresentationinpost-convictioncasesacrossGeorgia. ShedirectsMercer’suniqueIntroductiontoClientCounselingprogram, andhertextbook,WhatBringsYouHereToday?AnIntroductiontoClient Counseling,waspublishedinSummer2021.ProfessorGerwigwriteson topicsrelatedtocriminallaw,humanrights,lawandliterature,andlegaleducation,andwasa McDonaldDistinguishedFellowwithEmoryUniversity’sCenterfortheInterdisciplinaryStudyofLaw andReligionfrom2019-2023.Beyondherteachingandscholarship,shehasbeenengagedwitha numberofpublicserviceorganizations,includingtheGeorgiaResourceCenter,theGeorgiaInnocence Project,andtheAltamahaRiverkeeper.Shewasthefoundingco-chairoftheCollegeHillCorridor CommissionandservedontheMacon-BibbCountyPlanning&ZoningCommissionfrom2007-2015, includingseveralyearsasitschair.
BeforejoiningtheMercerfaculty,ProfessorGerwigwastheSeniorAppellateSupervisingAttorneyin thecentralofficeofGeorgia’sstatewidepublicdefendersystem.ShereceivedherBA,summacumlaude, fromMercerUniversity;herJDfromEmoryLawSchool;andherMasterofTheologicalStudiesfrom EmoryUniversity’sCandlerSchoolofTheology,whereshestudiedwithArchbishopDesmondTutu.Her otherhonorsincludeJudgeClydeReeseBoardofVisitorsAwardforExcellenceinTeaching(2023);the CandlerSchoolofTheologyDistinguishedAlumniAward(2017);theShanaraGilbertEmergingClinician AwardfromtheAALSClinicalLegalEducationSection(2013);theRobertJ.BenhamAwardCommunity ServiceAward(2011);andin2016wasnamedasoneofGeorgiaTrend’s40Under40.
GDSA Research Findings Evidence-Based Policy Development for Georgia Driver Education
RESEARCH PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW TheGeorgiaDrivingSchoolAssociationhascommissionedacomprehensiveresearchportfoliotosupport evidence-basedregulatorymodernizationofGeorgia’sregulateddrivingprograms.
Status
Complete Pre-Class Assessment Efficacy Study
Complete Online Instructor-Led Program Delivery Effectiveness
Complete Regulatory Loophole Analysis
Deliverable Due –February 16–17, 2026 (or earlier)
Deliverable Due –February 18–20, 2026 (or earlier)
Assessment of Regulatory Fee Reform and Equitable Allocation Argument
Reasonable and Necessary Legal Standard Analysis + PRI Workbook Cost Allocation & Cost of Goods Analysis (single integrated legal -economic project)
Dr. Orion Mowbray, University of Georgia
Dr. Orion Mowbray, University of Georgia
GDSA Staff Research Report
Sarah L. Gerwig and Research Team, Mercer University School of Law
Sarah L. Gerwig and Research Team, Mercer University School of Law
Research Brief 1: Pre-Class Assessment Efficacy Researcher: Dr.OrionMowbray,PhD,Professor,UniversityofGeorgia;ExecutiveDirector, DavidRalstonInstituteforBehavioralHealthandDevelopmentalDisabilities
Date Completed: January2026
Scope: Comprehensiveliteraturereviewevaluatingtheefficacyandmethodologicalvalidityof pre-classassessmentsindrivereducationcontexts
Key Findings: Noempiricalevidencesupportsmandatorypre-classassessmentsimprovingdrivereducationoutcomes
Pre-test/post-testdesignsindrivereducationliteratureareusedforprogramevaluation,notindividual readinessscreening
Assessmentswithhighfailurerates(40-50%)likelymeasureacademicskillratherthandrivingknowledge
Regulatoryrequirementcreatesaccessbarrierswithoutdemonstratedsafetybenefit
Policy Implications: Theresearchconcludesthatthemandatorypre-classassessmentprocessinGeorgialacksempirical justificationandshouldbeeliminatedfromregulatoryrequirements.Thepracticeimposesunnecessarycosts anddelaysoncitizenswithoutcontributingtoimproveddriversafetyoutcomes.Georgia’sregulatory frameworkshouldprioritizeevidence-basedinterventionsthatdemonstrablyenhancedrivereducation effectiveness.
Research Report 1—Summary and Policy Recommendations Executive Summary Georgia’scurrentDUIriskreductionsystemrequiresindividualsconvictedofdriving underthe influencetocompleteafront-endassessmentthroughacertifiedDUIschoolbeforeor alongsiderequired education.Thisassessmentisintendedtoidentifyrisk.However,the structureofDUIschoolcurriculadoes nottailorprogrammingbasedonrisk,andinmanycases, aclinicalevaluationisalreadycompletedpriorto DUIschoolentry.Therefore,afront-end assessmentoftenduplicatesexistingassessmentprocesses. Additionally,underthecurrent structure,DUIprogramsmayencounterconfusionandundueworkload burdengiventheneed formultipleassessments.Therefore,thecurrentsystemcreatesduplication,unclear orderingof requirements,administrativeburden,andunnecessaryfinancialstrainoncitizens.
Areviewofstandardizedalcoholscreeningtoolsdemonstratesthattherearemany reliable,valid, andno-costinstrumentsavailabletoassessalcohol-relatedproblemssuitablefor additiontoDUIschool curricula.ToolssuchastheAUDIT,CAGE,CRAFFT,ASSIST,MAST, andothersarewidelyusedinmany settings.Thesetoolsareeffectivewhenusedtoinformboth decision-makingandinteractionwithclients.
Acomparisontootherstatemodelsshowsthatmanystatesdonotrequireauniversal front-end assessmenttiedtoDUIeducationprograms.Inthesesystems,screeningand assessmenttypicallyoccur withintheclinicalevaluationortreatmentintakeprocessratherthan asaseparateadministrativestep. Researchshowsthatimpaired-drivinginterventionsaremost effectivewhenassessmentisdirectly connectedtotreatmentmatching,legalsanctions,and supervision,ratherthanfunctioningasastand-alone requirementorpartofstructuredcurricula. Maintainingafront-endassessmentinmostcasesprovides limitedadditionalbenefitwhile addingsignificantcost,delay,andconfusion.Eliminatingtheduplicative assessmentstepwould produceimmediatesavingsforparticipants,reduceadministrativeworkloadfor providers,and createaclearandmoreefficientprocess.
Basedontheevidence,thisreportrecommendsthatGeorgiamodifyandstreamlineits assessment requirementsratherthanmaintainthecurrentstructure.Specifically,allscreening andassessment functionsshouldoccurwithintheclinicalevaluationprocess,andthe requirementforafront-end assessmentthroughDUIschoolsshouldberemoved.However,DUI schoolsshouldretainminimalscreening forinstructionalpurposes,aspartofeducational curricula,usingwidelyavailablestandardizedtools. Additionally,regulatorylanguageshouldbe revisedtoclearlydefinesequencingofrequirements,eliminate duplicativesteps,andprohibit unnecessaryfees.Thesechangeswouldreduceredundancy,lowercoststo citizens,improve clarityandefficiency,andalignGeorgia’ssystemwithmodelsusedinotherstates, while maintainingpublicsafetyandappropriateoversight.
Policy Recommendations BasedonthereviewofGeorgia’scurrentassessmentrequirements,availableevidence, and comparisontootherstatemodels,themostappropriatepolicydirectionistomodifyand streamlinethe assessmentprocessratherthanmaintainitscurrentform.Theexistingstructure createsduplication, confusionaboutsequencing,andanunnecessaryfinancialburden,withno clearevidenceofaddedvalue. Whenaclinicalevaluationisrequired,responsibilityfor assessmentanddocumentationshouldrestwith trainingbehavioralhealthproviders.This removesunnecessaryadministrativestepsandprevents additionalfeesfrombeingpassedon toDUIschoolprogramsortheirparticipants.Last,anyrevised systemshouldalsoincludea mechanismformonitoringoutcomes,includingcompliancerates,participant feedback,costs, andpublicsafetyindicators.Together,thesepolicychangeswouldstreamline Georgia’s processes,reduceunnecessarycosts,eliminateredundantsteps,andalignwith regulatory languagecurrentlyusedinotherstates,whilemaintainingpublicsafetyandclinicaloversight.
Research Brief 2: Online Instructor-Led Delivery of DUI Risk Reduction Researcher: Dr.
OrionMowbray,PhD,Professor,UniversityofGeorgia
Date Completed: January2026
Scope: Meta-analysisandsystematicreviewofevidencecomparingonlineinstructor-ledversusin -persondeliveryofalcoholandDUIriskreductionprograms
Key Findings: Randomizedcontrolledtrialsshow no significant differences inalcoholconsumption,attendance,or participantsatisfactionbetweenonlineinstructor-ledandface-to-facedelivery
Synchronousonlineinstructionpreservestherapeuticallianceandinstructionalengagement
Instructionalqualityandfacilitatorcompetencearemoreinfluentialthandeliverymodality
Criticaldistinction:instructor-ledonlinedifferssignificantlyfromself-pacedonlineprograms,which lackempiricalsupportformandatedpopulations
Policy Implications: Thecumulativeevidencesupportsregulatoryapprovalofonline,instructor-ledDUIriskreduction programsasequivalenttoin-persondeliverywhenkeyconditionsaremet:synchronousinstruction, trainedfacilitators,andmechanismsensuringattendanceandaccountability.Thismodernizationincreases accessibilityandscalabilitywithoutcompromisingprogramintegrityorpublicsafetyobjectives.
Research Report 2—Summary and Conclusions Executive Summary AsstatesandregulatorybodiesconsideronlinedeliveryofDUIandalcoholrisk reductionprograms,a keypolicyquestioniswhetherinstructor-ledonlineformatscanpreserve theeffectiveness,accountability,and instructionalintegrityoftraditionalin-personprograms. Whilefullyself-pacedonlineDUIandalcoholrisk reductionprogramshaveexpandedrapidly, concernsremainregardingengagement,attrition,andbehavioral impactinmandated populations.Asaresult,attentionhasincreasinglyfocusedononline,instructor-ledDUI and alcoholriskreductionprogramsthatretainsynchronousinteraction,real-timefeedback,and facilitate groupprocesses.Thisreviewsynthesizesavailableresearchevidencerelevanttoonline, instructor-ledDUIand alcoholriskreductionprograms.Itfocusesspecificallyonsynchronous, instructor-leddelivery,distinguishes thisformatfromunguidedorasynchronousprograms,and summarizeskeyfindingsandlimitationsrelevantto regulatoryandpolicydecision-making.
Acrosstheliterature,acleardistinctionismadebetweeninstructor-ledandself-paced onlineprograms. Instructor-ledprogramsinvolvereal-timeinteractionwithatrainedfacilitator, typicallyviavideoconferencing, whereasself-pacedprogramsrelyonautomatedcontent deliverywithoutliveinstruction.Evidenceindicates thatonlinealcoholinterventionsare effectiveoverallinreducingalcoholconsumptionandalcohol-relatedrisk butdonotconsistently demonstratesuperioroutcomesforinstructor-ledversusself-pacedformats.However, additional evidenceshowsthatinstructorinvolvementinDUIandalcoholriskreductionprograms is associatedwithmodestimprovementsinshort-termdrinkingoutcomesandgreaterperceived relevanceand acceptability.
Directcomparisonsofinstructor-ledDUIandalcoholriskreductionprogramsandfaceto-facedelivery showlargelyequivalentoutcomes.Randomizedcontrolledtrialsreportno significantdifferencesinalcohol consumption,attendance,participantsatisfaction,ortherapeutic alliancebetweenvideoconference-basedand in-personprogramdelivery.Evidencefrombroader substanceusetreatmentandmandatededucational contextssimilarlysuggestthatsynchronous, instructor-ledDUIandalcoholriskreductionprogramsachieve
outcomescomparabletoinpersonprograms,withinstructionalqualityandfacilitatorcompetencemore influentialthan deliverymodalityalone.
Theliteraturealsoidentifiesimportantlimitations.Attritionremainsachallengeinall online programs,includinginstructor-ledformats.Manystudiesrelyonself-reportedoutcomes, andevidenceoflong -termmaintenancebeyondsixtotwelvemonthsislimited.Importantly,the researchcautionsagainst conflatinginstructor-ledDUIandalcoholriskreductionprogramswith fullyself-pacedmodels,whichlack comparableempiricalsupportinmandatedpopulations.
Overall,theevidencesupportstheconclusionthatonline,instructor-ledDUIandalcohol risk reductionprogramscanachieveoutcomescomparabletoin-persondeliverywhenkey conditionsaremet, includingsynchronousinstruction,trainedfacilitators,andmechanismsto ensureattendanceand accountability.Thesefindingsprovideanevidence-informedbasisfor regulatoryapprovalofinstructor-led onlineprogramswhilemaintainingprogramintegrityand publicsafetyobjectives.
Conclusions Thecumulativeevidencereviewedinthisreportindicatesitishighlylikelythat instructor-ledonline DUIandalcoholriskreductionprogramswillachieveoutcomescomparable totraditionalin-persondelivery acrossmultipledomains.Theevidencefurthersuggeststhatthe sameprogrammaticelementsthatpredict successininstructor-ledonlinesettings,including instructorcompetence,instructionalquality,synchronous interaction,accountability mechanisms,andcurriculumdesignareverylikelytobeequallypredictiveof successin traditionalin-personformats.
Intheliterature,effectivenessofbothonlineandin-persondeliverymodelsisconsistentlylinkedto thepresenceoftrained,competentfacilitatorswhoactivelyengage participants,facilitatediscussion,monitor attendance,andadaptinstructionbasedonparticipant responsiveness.Itisverylikelythatdeliverymodality alonedoesnotmeaningfullydifferentiate outcomes.Therapeuticalliance,perceivedrelevance,engagement, andsatisfactionappearto functionascoremechanismsofchangeregardlessofwhetherinstructionoccursin aphysical classroomorasynchronousvirtualenvironment.
Theresearchdoesnotsupportequatingall“online”programsasequivalent.Rather,it underscoresthe importanceofdistinguishinginstructor-led,synchronousprogramsfrom unguidedorself-pacedmodelsthat lackcomparableempiricalsupportinmandatedpopulations. Whenkeyprogrammaticelementsarepresent, instructor-ledonlinedeliverycanpreservethe behavioral,instructional,andrelationalmechanismsthat underpineffectiveriskreduction,while offeringincreasedaccessibilityandflexibility.
Insum,theavailableevidencesupportsapolicyapproachthatprioritizesprogram integrityand instructionalcompetenceoverdeliverymodality,allowingforinstructor-ledonline andin-personprogramsto beevaluatedusingconsistentstandardsgroundedinwhatpredicts successfuloutcomesinbothformats.
Forthcoming Research Cost-Benefit Analysis: PRI Workbook Pricing and Allocation Scope: IndependentaccountinganalysisofPreventionResearchInstitute(PRI)workbook coststructure, pricingmethodology,andappropriatecostallocationprinciplesformandatededucationalmaterials
GDSA seeks independent professional accounting expertise to evaluate whether current regulatory pricing restrictions align with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and sound cost allocation methodology. This analysis will inform policy discussions regarding fair pricing standards for mandated program materials.
Research Brief 3: Regulatory Loophole Analysis Author: GDSAStaffReport
Date Completed: 2025
Scope: ComprehensiveanalysisofDUIplea-bargainloopholesandcomparativestudyof12 statesthathaveclosedsimilarloopholesthroughmandatorycompletionrequirements
Key Findings: Approximately16,000DUI-arrestedindividualsannuallyregaindrivingprivilegesinGeorgiawithout completingtheRiskReductionProgramthroughpleabargains,restrictedlicenses,andALSpermits
Twelvestateshaveclosedthisloophole: FL, NY, NC, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, NV
All12statesrequireprogramcompletion(notmerelyenrollment)beforeissuinganylimiteddriving privilegepost-DUIarrest
Nationalbestpractice:earlyinterventionpost-arrestratherthanwaitingforfinaladjudication,withno plea-bargainexemptions
CurrentGeorgiapolicycreatespublicsafetyrisksandinconsistentapplicationbasedonprosecutorial discretion
Policy Implications: ClosingGeorgia’splea-bargainloopholealignsthestatewithnationalstandardsestablishedby12leading jurisdictionswhilestrengtheningroadwaysafety.ThereformensuresthatDUI-arrestedindividualsseeking licensereinstatementcompletestatutorily-mandatededucation,whilemaintainingappropriateexemptions fordismissedandnot-guiltycases.Thiscreatesuniformstatewideapplication,eliminatesprosecutorial discretionloopholes,andprovidesevidence-basedinterventionto16,000additionalindividualsannually.
LEGAL & POLICY RESEARCH Legal Analysis: “Reasonable and Necessary” Regulatory Standard
Research Partner: Independent Research- Professor
Sarah L. Gerwig- Mercer University School of Law
Research Objectives Summary
Objective 1: Define the Legal Meaning of “Reasonable and Necessary”
AnalyzehowGeorgiastatutesandDDSadministrative rulesdefineandlimitfeesforrequiredstudent programmaterials,focusingonthestatutory requirementthatfeesbe reasonable and necessary to covermaterialcosts.
Objective 2: Examine Judicial Interpretation
IdentifyandanalyzeGeorgiaappellateandrelevant federalcourtdecisionsinterpreting“reasonable,” “necessary,”or“reasonableandnecessary”in governmentalfee-setting,cost-recovery,and regulatoryreimbursementcontexts.
Objective 3: Distinguish Allowable vs. Unallowable Costs
Clarifyhowcourtsandregulatorsdistinguish direct material costs from unallowable operational, administrative, or overhead costs inregulated, monopoly,orstate-mandatedprograms.
Objective 4: Apply GAAP and OMB Cost-Allocability Standards
Evaluatehow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost-allocabilityguidancedefinedirect costs,indirectcosts,allowablecosts,andunallowable costs andhowthosestandardsalignwithstatutory feelimits.
Objective 5: Assess DDS Fee-Setting Authority
AnalyzeDDS’sstatutoryauthoritytosetandcap workbookorstudent-materialfeesandevaluateDDS’s legalobligationtoensurethosefeesreflectonly reasonableandnecessarymaterialcosts.
Objective 6: Evaluate Monopoly Cost-Loading Practices
Examinewhethercostssuchastrainingprograms, licensingfees,instructorsupportservices, administrativeoverhead,andintellectual-property
expensesmaylawfullybeembeddedinrequired studentmaterialfeesunderlegalandaccounting standards.
Objective 7: Analyze Multi-State Cost Allocation
Assesspropercostallocationwheresubstantially similarworkbooksandprogramsaredeliveredacross multiplestatesandfederalprograms,andwhethercosts mustbeequitablydistributedratherthanloadedonto Georgiastudents.
Objective 8: Review Rebranding of “Workbook” as “Access Fee”
Examinewhetherrecharacterizingrequiredmaterials asan“accessfee”altersDDS’sstatutoryobligationsor expandslawfulfee-settingauthorityunderGeorgialaw.
Objective 9: Produce Policy-Ready Legal Deliverables
Preparelegalmemoranda,accountingpolicybriefs, appliedanalyses,andexecutivesummariessuitablefor DDSreview,legislativeconsideration,andboard-level decision-making,supportedbyfulllegalandaccounting citations.
Assessment of Regulatory Fee Reform & Equitable Allocation
Independent Legal & Policy Research Objectives
Research Partner: Professor Sarah L. Gerwig, Mercer University School of Law
$30.00 State Rebate Fee
Objective 1: Statutory Authority for Regulatory Fees
AnalyzeGeorgiastatutesgoverningtheimpositionand remittanceofregulatoryfeesinstate-mandated programs,includingO.C.G.A.§40-5-83.1(d),to determinethelegalpurpose,scope,andlimitationsof theDUIassessmentrebate.
Objective 2: Legal Standards Governing Regulatory Fee Allocation
Examinejudicialandadministrativestandardsrequiring thatregulatoryfeesbeararationalrelationshiptothe costofregulationandthepopulationsubjectto regulatoryoversight.
Objective 3: Proportionality and Equity Analysis
Assesswhetherrequiringasingleclassofregulated participantstofundregulatorycomplianceformultiple programsalignswithprinciplesofproportionality, fairness,andnon-arbitraryfeeallocationunderGeorgia law.
Objective 4: Scope of DDS Regulatory Oversight
EvaluatetherangeofprogramssubjecttoDDS RegulatoryComplianceoversightandauditactivityand analyzewhethercurrentfundingmechanisms accuratelyreflectthebreadthofthatoversight.
Objective 5: Cost Attribution to Regulated Populations
Analyzewhetherregulatorycompliancecostsshouldbe allocatedsolelytoDUIRiskReductionassessment participantsordistributedacrossallDDS-regulated programsreceivingregulatoryoversight.
Objective 6: DBHDD Allocation Review
ExaminethestatutoryroleoftheDepartmentof BehavioralHealthandDevelopmentalDisabilities (DBHDD)andassesswhetherDBHDD-directedportions oftheassessmentremittanceareappropriatelysourced fromDDS-regulatedparticipants.
Objective 7: Alternative Allocation Models
Identifyandevaluatealternativeregulatoryfee allocationstructures,includingshared-costmodelsand DDS-onlycostattribution,todeterminelegally supportableapproachesconsistentwithstatutory intent.
Objective 8: Compliance with Governmental CostAllocation Principles
Assesswhethercurrentandalternativeregulatoryfee structuresalignwithrecognizedgovernmentalcostallocationpractices,includingtransparency, proportionality,andaccountability.
Objective 9: Legal Implications for Policy and Rulemaking
Provideanalysisofhowregulatoryfeereformoptions maybeimplementedthroughstatute,regulation,or appropriationswhilepreservingfullfundingfor regulatorycomplianceactivities.
Objective 10: Research Deliverables
Preparewrittenlegalandpolicyanalysissuitablefor DDSreview,legislativeconsideration,andboard-level decision-making.
GDSA COMMITMENT TO EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY TheGeorgiaDrivingSchoolAssociationiscommittedto supportingregulatorymodernizationthroughrigorous, independentresearchconductedbyleadingacademicand professionalinstitutions.Ourresearchportfoliodemonstrates dedicationtoevidence-basedpolicydevelopmentthatserves Georgiacitizens,enhancespublicsafety,andpromotes
