U.S. Department

of Transportation http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov 

National Highway

Traffic Safety 

Administration

 

DOT HS 809 518 October 2002 

NHTSA Technical Report

Evaluation of Child Safety Seat 

Registration

This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers= names appear only 

because they are considered essential to the object of this report.
 Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No.

 

DOT HS 809 518 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

 

October 2002 

4. Title and Subtitle 

 

Evaluation of Child Safety Seat Registration 

 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

 

Marie C. Walz 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

Evaluation Division; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Budget 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Washington, DC 20590 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

NHTSA Technical Report 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Washington, DC 20590 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

16. Abstract 

Beginning March 1993, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 required manufacturers to provide a 

postage-paid registration form with each new child safety seat sold, with the goal of increasing consumer 

response to child seat recalls. Before March 1993, registration was voluntary for manufacturers. 

It is estimated that registration increased from 3 percent prior to 1993, to an average 27 percent over the 

years 1996 through 2000. Based on data from 1990 through 2000, the repair rate for recalled child seats 

also increased, from 13.8 percent before the registration requirement to 21.5 percent once the requirement 

was in effect. The cost to consumers for child seat registration and notification is approximately 43 cents 

per seat sold in the United States. 

 

17. Key Words 

child restraint; child seat; child safety; recall; 

registration; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard; FMVSS 213; statistical analysis; 

evaluation; consumer 

18. Distribution Statement 

 

Document is available to the public through the 

National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 

 

19. Security Classif. (Of this report) 

 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (Of this page) 

 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

 

 151 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background..................................................................... 1

1.1 1993 Changes in FMVSS 213................................................................................. 1

1.2 Prior to Amending FMVSS 213............................................................................. 2

Chapter 1 Footnotes.......................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2: Registration and Recall Compliance Rates................................................ 7

2.1 Registration Information........................................................................................ 7

2.2 Recall Information................................................................................................ 11

2.2.1 NHTSA Recall Data ................................................................................. 12 

2.2.2 Repair Rates for Recalled Child Seats...................................................... 16 

2.3 Conclusions............................................................................................................ 20

2.3.1 Results of Registration Analyses.............................................................. 20 

2.3.2 Results of Recall Compliance Analyses................................................... 21 

Chapter 2 Footnotes........................................................................................................ 23

Chapter 3: Consumer Response ................................................................................... 25

3.1 Consumer Survey Background............................................................................ 25

3.2 Consumer Survey Results.................................................................................... 28

3.2.1 General Demographics.............................................................................. 30

3.2.2 Child Safety Seat Registration.................................................................. 33 

3.2.3 Child Safety Seat Registration Demographic Data................................... 37 

3.2.4 Reasons for Registering/Not Registering Child Seats.............................. 40 

3.2.5 Acquisition of a Child Restraint ............................................................... 44 

3.2.6 Information on Child Safety Seat Selection.............................................. 49 

3.2.7 Receiving Information Regarding Registration........................................ 51 

3.2.8 Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats.......................................... 53 

3.2.9 Importance of Recalling Child Safety Seats............................................. 54 

3.2.10 Perceived Best Methods of Recall Notification........................................ 55 

3.3 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 59

Chapter 3 Footnotes........................................................................................................ 62

Chapter 4: Impact on Recalls....................................................................................... 63

4.1 Recall Audit........................................................................................................... 63

4.2 Recall Survey Background................................................................................... 64

4.3 Survey Results for Consumers Experiencing a Recall ...................................... 66

4.3.1 General Demographics of the Recall survey ............................................ 66 

4.3.2 Reasons for Registering Child Seats......................................................... 68 

4.3.3 Acquisition of a Child Restraint ............................................................... 68 

4.3.4 Importance of Registering and Recalling Child Safety Seats................... 70 

4.3.5 Perceived Best Methods of Recall Notification........................................ 71 

4.3.6 Actual Method of Recall Notification....................................................... 72 

4.3.7 The Recall Experience .............................................................................. 74

iii 
Chapter 4 Footnotes........................................................................................................ 76

Chapter 5: The Role of Dealers in Child Seat Registration....................................... 77

5.1 Dealer Survey Background................................................................................. 77

5.2 Dealer Survey Results.......................................................................................... 79

5.2.1 Dealer Information.................................................................................... 79

5.2.2 The Dealer Viewpoint on Registration ..................................................... 80 

5.2.3 Registration Information Dealers Provide to the Consumer..................... 81 

5.2.4 Dealers and Recall Information ................................................................ 81 

5.2.5 Dealer Experience with Recalls of Seats still in Stock............................. 83 

5.3 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 84

Chapter 6: The Role of Loaner Programs in Child Seat Registration...................... 87

6.1 Loaner Program Interview Background ........................................................... 87

6.2 Loaner Program Demographics......................................................................... 88

6.3 Loaner Programs and Registration.................................................................... 89

6.4 Loaner Programs and Recalls............................................................................. 90

6.5 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 91

Chapter 6 Footnotes........................................................................................................ 92

Chapter 7: Costs and Benefits ...................................................................................... 93

7.1 Background: Cost Estimates in the Final Regulatory Evaluation (1992)....... 93

7.2 Updated Estimate of Costs Associated with Child Seat Registration ............. 94

7.2.1 Cost of the Registration Card.................................................................... 94 

7.2.2 Cost of Returned Registration Cards ........................................................ 95 

7.2.3 Cost of Recall Notification Mailed to Consumers.................................... 97 

7.3 Benefits of Required Child Seat Registration Cards........................................ 98

Chapter 7 Footnotes...................................................................................................... 100

Appendix A: General Consumer Survey ................................................................... 101

Appendix B: Recall Survey ......................................................................................... 113

Appendix C: Additional Tables.................................................................................. 131

iv 
Executive Summary 

Beginning March 1993, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213 (Child 

Restraint Systems, 49 CFR 571.213) required manufacturers to provide a postage-paid 

registration form with each new child safety seat. This was done to improve consumer 

response to child seat recall campaigns. The format of the card was specified, with 

information pertaining to the seat pre-printed, to make it as easy as possible for 

consumers to register their seats. The card was attached to the seat at a location where 

owners would see it and handle it before they could buckle a child in the seat. Prior to 

the 1993 requirement of registration cards, an estimated three percent of consumers 

registered their child seats. Currently, the registration rate is 27 percent, according to 

data from the manufacturers. 

What has happened to the repair rate for recalled child safety seats? There are various

ways to determine the average repair rate. The preferred method in this report is to 

compute the percentage of seats repaired in each recall, and then take the average across 

recalls. Data were examined for the years 1990 through 2000. Before the rule took effect 

in 1993, the average repair rate was 13.8 percent. After registration cards were required, 

the rate rose to 21.5 percent, a 56 % increase. This 7.7 percentage point increase is 

statistically significant. This report will show that the 7.7 percentage point increase is 

consistent with expectations based on the increase in registration from 3 to 27 percent, 

the likelihood that consumers learn about recalls via a letter from the manufacturer as 

opposed to other information sources, and how frequently consumers aware of a recall 

actually have the seat repaired. In other words, a substantial portion, and possibly most 

of the 7.7 percentage point increase in recall repairs, is due to safety seat registration, 

although some of it may be due to other factors that increased consumer awareness of 

child passenger safety. These benefits have been realized at a consumer cost of about 43 

cents for each seat sold in the U.S. 

Other methods of computing repair rates are considered in the report, and yielded similar 

results. Repair rates can vary greatly from one recall to another, depending, for example, 

on how promptly a defect is identified, and consumers’ perceptions on the seriousness of 

the defect. Therefore, to discern a meaningful trend, it is important to average repair 

rates over several years and numerous recalls, and not to be overly concerned about large 

swings in the repair rate from one year to the next. 

Data from several sources were incorporated in this report. NHTSA’s Office of Defects 

Investigation (ODI) provided consumer registration and recall compliance records from 

child seat manufacturers. Consumers, both the general public (General survey) and those 

known to have experienced a recall (Recall survey), were surveyed on registration and 

recall activities, as well as other related topics. Dealers that sell child seats were queried 

regarding such topics as discussing registration with consumers and providing recall 

information. Interviews were also completed with loaner programs, both those associated 

with public health agencies and those with a hospital affiliation. 

v 
One discrepancy in this evaluation is that hard data submitted by the manufacturers show 

an actual registration rate of 27 percent, whereas respondents in the General survey selfreported registering at a rate of 62 percent. There is no doubt that the 27 percent rate is 

the correct one for the overall population. The registration rate in the General survey is 

high presumably because (1) the type of people recruited to participate in the survey are 

more likely to register their seats, and (2) in addition, some may be reporting inaccurately 

that they registered their seats. (Similar overreporting occurs in telephone surveys of 

self-reported belt use.) However, this study does not use the survey to estimate overall 

registration rate, but rather uses the self-reports to assess consumers’ feelings about 

recalling seats, why people do and do not register their seats, and similar topics. The 

important findings of the General survey – that child seat registration and the recall of 

unsafe seats are important to consumers, that people not registering do so because they 

are “too busy” and not because they are hostile to the registration process or fear how 

their information will be used, and that consumers receive little advice about registration 

when they acquire their seat – are most likely not affected by these biases. 

The repair rate of 21.5 percent was determined using a specific set of recalls. Those 

involving label corrections only were excluded, since they are considered unverifiable. 

Recalls that were too recent to have reported the required six quarters of data, those 

involving small companies producing a limited number of seats, and those involving 

companies that had gone out of business were also excluded from the rate determination. 

When a recall occurs, about 22 percent of those that registered their child seat first hear 

of it from the manufacturer’s letter. Regardless of how they first find out, approximately 

56 percent of people in the General survey who said they registered remembered being 

notified by the manufacturer. These rates could be low if some of the participants in the 

General survey who claimed they registered their seats, in fact, did not. In addition, some

consumers may have moved and not had the notice forwarded to their new address. 

When data from the ODI audit are included, which was limited to people who definitely 

registered their seats, over 77 percent remember hearing from the manufacturer. Along 

with notification from the manufacturer, many consumers, whether registered or not, first 

find out about a recall either from a television announcement or by hearing the 

information from a friend or relative. A large group of unregistered owners also read 

about the recall in a newspaper or magazine, and others learn about them from notices 

posted in retail stores. 

Many consumers cannot be reached by a letter from the manufacturer. About 73 percent 

of consumers have not registered, so contact information is unavailable. Even among 

those that do register, this information can become obsolete when they move and fail to 

notify the manufacturer. Census data suggest that about 23 percent of child seat owners 

may have moved within the first year, 41 percent after two years, and 54 percent within 

three years of purchasing the seat. This leaves less than half the child seat owners at their 

address of record three years after registering. Child seats are often passed on to friends 

or family as children grow. About 16 percent of consumers surveyed were not the 

original owner of the seat currently in use. Few subsequent owners register their seats, 

although provisions are made to allow for this. Considering these factors, manufacturers 

vi 
would be able to reach between 21 and 27 percent of child seat owners after one year, and 

only about ten to thirteen percent after three years. 

The amendment to FMVSS 213 required a label on the child seat to provide the 

manufacturer’s contact information for second and subsequent owners to register the seat. 

NHTSA also offers a form on its website that can be used to register the seat with the 

manufacturer. More could be done to advise consumers of the availability of this. 

Similarly, consumers can notify the manufacturer when they move, in order to keep 

contact information current. Programs aimed at reminding seat owners to do this could 

increase the number of registered owners that can be reached by the manufacturer in the 

event of a recall. For example, the U.S. Post Office provides checklists and information 

on what to do when moving. Adding a note on updating contact information for 

registered child seats could serve as a reminder for seat owners. 

While the current report stresses the importance of registering child seats, other methods 

of recall notification are clearly both important and necessary. Television programs, 

newspapers, and magazines providing announcements on recalls, as well as stores posting 

recall notices, are to be commended on the job they do of reaching consumers who would 

not have otherwise known about the recall. 

Consumers that comply with child seat recalls generally find it easy to contact the 

manufacturer, the instructions easy to understand, and the repairs easy to perform. 

Consumers that are aware of recalls, for the most part, do follow through and fix the seat. 

The majority of those that are aware of a recall but do not repair their seat have an 

appropriate reason, such as no longer using the seat. 

While the repair of unsafe child seats has increased since registration cards were required, 

there is ample room for even greater improvement. A very few consumers are openly 

hostile to the registration card and unwilling to provide the necessary information. About 

two percent of respondents stated they did not register because they were concerned 

about the possible use of the information they would need to provide. Most consumers 

that did not register, about 85 percent, stated they were just too busy and never got to it. 

In reality, very little effort is required on the part of the consumer. 

Adding a space for an e-mail address on the registration form could make initial recall 

notification faster. It could also be helpful in locating seat owners that have changed 

residence but retained their e-mail address. Another way NHTSA could help publicize 

recalls would be to promote the Consumer Products Safety Commission recall 

notification subscription list. The CPSC offers a free e-mail service in which subscribers 

are notified of CPSC press releases, including recalls. Options are available to restrict 

mailings to recalls only, or just those recalls presenting a risk to children. NHTSA could 

mention these e-mail lists in its child-related safety materials as well as providing a link 

on its web page. 

NHTSA could increase registration with programs aimed at those groups that currently 

have low registration rates. According to the consumer survey performed for this report, 

vii 
the lowest registration rates were among those in the lowest income group, those with 

less education, and younger seat owners. Older, more educated consumers, and those 

with higher incomes, were more likely to register their child seats, as were consumers 

who spoke with someone about registration at the time they obtained their seat. 

Dealers do provide information regarding child seat registration and recall, but much 

more could be done to support them in encouraging customers to register their child 

seats. Only about three percent of consumers purchasing a seat remember discussing 

registration with a store employee. Consumers were more likely to discuss registration

when the seat was received as a gift than when it was purchased. When registration was 

discussed with someone at the time the seat was acquired, the registration rate increased 

by about seven percentage points. This is true whether the seat was purchased, and the 

purchaser discussed registration with someone at the store, or received as a gift, at which 

time the recipient may have discussed registration with the gift-giver. 

The survey of dealers indicates that some types of stores do a more thorough job of 

keeping consumers informed about registration and recalls. Further study in this area is 

suggested to provide information on what types of stores might offer the largest gains 

from programs aimed at increasing child seat registration as well as recall notification 

and compliance. Store management, as well as local child safety organizations, could 

work to support dealers in getting more information to their customers. Dealers could be 

provided with a brochure outlining registration benefits, as well as how easy the process 

is, to hand to the customer with each child seat purchase. The brochure could also 

suggest that those purchasing the seat as a gift offer to register the seat in the name of the 

busy new parents. This small procedure could do much to increase registration. 

Although only about one percent of consumers obtain their child seat from a communitybased loaner program, such programs offer an important service. While many provide 

child seats to those that could otherwise not afford them, other programs serve to make 

the usage of child seats more likely. For example, there are programs that focus on 

loaning seats to grandparents for visiting grandchildren, who otherwise might ride 

unprotected during a vacation visit. Other programs provide seats for children with 

temporary medical conditions, who are better protected in a specific type of seat. Loaner 

programs do a good job of providing training for using child seats and often assist in 

registering the seat, as well as monitoring for recalls on the seats they loan. 

Requiring registration cards has increased recall compliance at a low cost to consumers. 

Further steps can be taken to achieve even further improvements. 

viii 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213 (Child Restraint Systems, 49 CFR 

571.213) specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles. On 

March 9, 1993, the standard was amended to require manufacturers to provide a 

registration form with each child safety seat (57 FR 41428; 9/10/92). The goal of the 

new rule was to improve the percentage of recalled child restraints fixed in recall 

campaigns for defect or noncompliance. 

Child safety seats have been determined to reduce the risk of fatal injury in passenger 

cars by 71% for infants (children under one year of age) and 54% for toddlers (children 

age one through four). In light trucks (pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans), 

infant fatalities are reduced 58%, and toddler fatalities, 59%1

. From 1975 through 2000, 

over 4,800 lives were saved by the use of child restraints. In 2000, children under age 

five were restrained 91% of the time

2

. Clearly, child safety has a high priority. The 

excellent protection and high usage rate of child safety seats have saved thousands of 

young lives. The highest quality and consumer confidence must be maintained in order 

to preserve such high effectiveness and use rates. If child safety seat owners are assured 

that, should something be discovered problematic with their seat, they will be notified, 

that confidence increases. When recalled seats are repaired, that quality is maintained, 

offering the highest level of protection to young children. 

1.1 1993 Changes in FMVSS 213 

The major modification to FMVSS 213 in 1993 was the requirement that manufacturers 

include a postage paid registration form with each child safety seat. The form must be 

pre-addressed, postage paid, with the mailing address and child restraint information 

(such as seat model number and date of manufacture) preprinted. The registration card 

must be attached to a surface of the restraint that contacts any portion of a test dummy

properly positioned in the seat. The purpose of this is to ensure that the purchaser notices

the form, and must handle it in order to detach it from the restraint. A generic version of 

the form, without model or mailing information, is available on NHTSA’s website at: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/csregfrm.pdf 

In addition, labeling on the child restraint itself must include both an address and phone 

number for the manufacturer. This would enable subsequent owners of the seat to 

contact the manufacturer to register the seat. Manufacturers are required to maintain 

these registration records for a minimum of six years from the date of manufacture of the 

seat. Child restraints built into vehicles at the factory are exempt from these registration 

requirements. Vehicle manufacturers are already able to contact purchasers in the event 

of a recall of built-in child seats. Vehicles that are sold to subsequent owners can be 

found using the Vehicle Identification Number and state registration data. 

NHTSA had originally proposed manufacturers to maintain owner registration records for 

a minimum of eight years from the date of seat manufacture, and requested comments on 

1 
the length of this record keeping period. For the final rule, this period was shortened to 

six years. Influencing this change were the fact that most child restraints are sold within 

the first year after manufacture, most recall problems are detected within the first few 

years of service, and many seats are discarded after a child outgrows them (although 

others are handed down to a younger sibling or children in other families). At the time of 

the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, the average length of time between the date of 

manufacture and date of recall was 26 months, and the longest time to recall was 51⁄2 

years. Since all recalls had occurred earlier than six years from the production date, this 

was designated as the required length of time manufacturers were required to maintain 

records. 

The date of manufacture was used, rather than the date of purchase, to allow 

manufacturers to pre-print the information on the card. It reduces the burden on the 

consumer as well as the chance of error, by removing one field that the consumer needs 

to complete. 

1.2 Prior to Amending FMVSS 213 

The amendment of FMVSS 213 was in response to a petition for rulemaking from Center 

for Auto Safety (CAS) and Consumer Action of San Francisco. NHTSA proposed the 

registration program to improve the distribution of recall information directly to 

individual owners of child safety seats. 

Before amending FMVSS 213, NHTSA discussed the changes with several agencies, 

including the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Food and Drug 

Administration. One of the outcomes of these discussions was the belief that requiring a 

card with the postage prepaid would increase the response rate. Chain-saw registration 

cards, for example, were returned about 40 percent of the time when the card was 

postage-paid, and between 20 and 30 percent when it was not. One of the manufacturers 

of child seats that already included (not postage-paid) warranty cards stated that they had 

a return rate of about 10 percent. The CPSC reported an average 7 to 10 percent return 

rate for warranty cards for various types of products. 

As will be shown in Chapter 2, before the rule took effect, about 13.8 percent of child

restraints involved in recalls were reported as “campaigned units.” Campaigned units are 

those restraints that were reported remedied, removed from sale to the public, or removed 

from use by the public. 

During the period from 1981 through 1989, approximately six million child restraints 

were recalled, with about 10.5 percent of these reported as campaigned units. During 

1990 and 1991, almost twelve million child restraints were involved in recalls, of which 

eleven percent was reported as campaigned units. This reflects the percentage of 

remedied child seats for all campaigns in aggregate. 

Although these low response rates might seem to indicate a lack of concern or interest on 

the part of the owners, clearly that is not the case. A press conference on child seat 

recalls held by CAS in December 1989 resulted in an overwhelming public response. 

2 
During the eight months following the press conference, NHTSA’s Auto Safety Hotline 

received over 30,000 calls from individuals asking about child seat recalls and the safety 

of child seats. This suggests that many owners of child safety seats are quite motivated, 

and would comply with a recall if they knew about it. 

 

NHTSA convened a series of focus groups to study consumers’ attitudes about the 

proposed registration program and other child safety issues. Participants overwhelmingly 

supported the idea of child seat registration. They indicated they would be most likely to 

return a registration card that was postage paid, clearly stated it was to be used for 

registering in case of recall, and required minimal time and effort to complete. To this

end, the mailing address, model name and/or number, and date of manufacture are 

preprinted on the card. The consumer is required only to fill in his/her name and address, 

and mail the card. 

In the Final Regulatory Evaluation3

, NHTSA expected that the return rate of registration 

cards would be 30 to 40 percent. If the public became more aware of the need to return 

the registration cards, the return rate could go even higher. 

The return rate of registration cards is related to, but different from, the percentage of 

child seats remedied in a recall. Someone who returns a registration card is not 

necessarily going to remedy the seat if the seat were recalled. Furthermore, the registrant 

might not be the same person that would respond to a recall if, for example, the seat had 

changed hands. Additionally, someone who does not return the card might still have the 

seat fixed in the event of a recall by learning about it from a sign posted in a store, or 

seeing a public announcement. 

These factors also play a part in the recall of motor vehicles. At the time of the Final 

Regulatory Evaluation for child seat registration, about 60 percent of motor vehicles 

involved in recalls were remedied. This is a benchmark that NHTSA suggested for 

estimating potential recall compliance rates for child safety seats. (Currently, 72 percent 

of the owners of vehicles with safety problems have the recall work performed.) There 

are differences, though, between vehicles and child seats that could cause the response 

rates to vary. Child safety seats could possibly have an even higher rate of response, 

since the manufacturer usually mails the required fix to the owner, eliminating a trip to 

the store or dealer for repairs. 

On the other hand, child seat owners, even if they have returned the registration card, are 

more difficult to locate than are vehicle owners. Virtually all vehicle owners can be 

determined and tracked by sales receipts, dealer service receipts, and/or registration data. 

Owners of child seats move, as well as sell or give away the seats, or simply dispose of

them after two to four years as the child outgrows them. Although FMVSS 213 provides 

for registration of second and later seat owners, they are still more difficult to keep track 

of than are vehicle owners. This clearly works to lower the overall response rate to child 

seat recalls. 

3 
In addition, when a car owner brings his or her car to a dealer for repair, the dealer is 

likely to note that there is a recall notice on the car and inquire with the owner about 

doing the repair. There is no comparable system present for child restraints. 

Obviously, there is a marked difference between the 60 percent remedy rate for recalled 

vehicles and the 13.8 percent for child seats before the rule took effect. Even under ideal 

circumstances, it is unlikely that repair rates for child seats will reach 60 percent. 

Vehicle owners are much easier to locate, and vehicles are far more likely to remain with 

the original owner and in use much longer than are child seats. 

4 
Chapter 1 Footnotes 

 1. Revised Estimates of Child Restraint Effectiveness, Research Note. U.S. 

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC, December 1996. 

2. Traffic Safety Facts 2000: Children. DOT HS 809 324, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, 

DC, 2001. 

3. Final Regulatory Evaluation: Registration of Child Restraints FMVSS 213. U.S. 

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Office of Plans and Policy, Office of Regulatory Analysis, May, 1992. 

5 
6 
Chapter 2: Registration and Recall Compliance Rates 

Prior to 1993, fewer than three percent of child seats were registered. Thus, it was very 

difficult for manufacturers to directly contact owners of child seats should a recall occur. 

Once the requirement for registration cards came into effect, 27 percent of child seats 

were registered, an increase of 24 percentage points. The data also show an increase in 

the proportion of child seats involved in recalls being repaired. Before the requirement, 

about 13.8 percent of seats were repaired. Afterward, the rate of recall response rose to 

21.5 percent, and increase of 7.7 percentage points, which will be shown to be consistent 

with the increase in registration. Information on the recalls used for these rates is 

provided in Section 2.2.1. 

These findings are based on analyses of statistical data that child safety seat 

manufacturers are required to provide to NHTSA. They report production of child seats, 

as well as the number or percent of seats that are registered annually. In the event of a 

recall, manufacturers must keep NHTSA informed of the number of seats involved in the 

recall as well as how many seats have been remedied. 

2.1 Registration Information 

Before 1993, only one major manufacturer of child safety seats had a warranty card 

system in place. At the time, they had been getting a return rate of about ten percent with 

cards that were not postage-paid. This would translate to less than three percent of all 

child seats being registered prior to the registration card requirement. 

Child seat manufacturers provide NHTSA with information on production, registration, 

and recalls. These production numbers are considered proprietary information, and 

therefore can only be reported as aggregate numbers. Model and seat type information 

cannot be separately reported. Thus, for data presented in this section, booster seats as 

well as rear-facing, convertible, and forward-facing seats are included in all totals and 

percentages. All other data throughout this report include only infant and toddler safety 

seats. There is no known reason to expect that registration rates differ by the type of seat 

or age of the child. Consumers surveyed (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3) did not report 

differing rates of registration for children less than six months of age than for those age 

six to twenty-four months. 

Production of child seats varies by manufacturer over the years. In addition, 

manufacturers store and manage registration information differently. Some immediately 

enter data from purchasers into a computerized database. Others warehouse it, accessible 

by seat model, until a recall occurs, and then retrieve consumer information. Note that 

the registration data could come from telephone contacts, letters, or other sources as well 

as the registration cards. 

Manufacturers reported to NHTSA in September and October 2000, regarding 

communication to dealers, distributors, or other purchasers, concerning defects in their 

child seats. This was in addition to communications required to be submitted to NHTSA 

7 
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573.5(c)(9). One of the four major manufacturers reported that 

phone contacts, followed by a fax or sometimes mail, were sent as an initial (nonrequired) notification concerning a potential recall. They reported that a request that 

stock or inventory be held or returned might be made at that time. 

At the time this information was sent to NHTSA, only two of the four manufacturers had 

web sites, which provided consumers with recall (and other) information. Currently all 

four have extensive websites where recall information is easily accessible. Some of these 

sites also provide links to related safety information, such as NHTSA and FAA sites, as 

well as providing online seat registration and updating. 

Yearly variations occur for all manufacturers in the production of child seats. 

Registration and production numbers do not necessarily coincide year-to-year. Seats 

manufactured in one year might be sold and/or registered the next. These variations 

result in yearly differences in registration rates. Examining the available data, there was 

no obvious trend, either increasing or decreasing, over the years since the requirement 

went into effect. In addition, data were not available from every manufacturer for every 

year. Thus, an average over a number of years provides a better estimate of the 

registration rate than would any individual year. Specifically, only one of the four major 

manufacturers of child seats had available data for the year 2000. One of the 

manufacturers produced no seats in 1996, and also did not have up-to-date information 

available for 1999, while another could not provide registration data for individual years 

prior to 1998. Thus, two manufacturers provided data for 1996, three for 1997, all four 

for 1998, three for 1999, and only one for 2000. 

Using available data from the manufacturers of all child seats, over the years 1996 

through 2000 (the most recent year for which both production and registration data are 

available from any of the manufacturers), 27 percent of all child seats were registered. 

The average registration rate over the years 1996 through 1999 was also 27 percent, so 

although only one manufacturer provided data for the year 2000, including that most 

current data is not influenced by the single sample. 

Information supplied by the manufacturers concerned seats that were manufactured or 

distributed for sale in the United Stated and its territories. Thus, neither the sale nor the 

registration of exported seats is recorded in these data. In addition, seats that are 

distributed to sales outlets are, for the most part, sold. According to a large national 

children’s specialty store, seats that don’t sell well are lowered in price until they are 

purchased. The exception is when seats are recalled, at which point they might be 

returned to the manufacturer. NHTSA considers recalled seats “campaigned” whether 

the store or manufacturer repairs and then sell them, or if they are simply withdrawn from

the supply by the manufacturer. 

This means that, for the most part, child safety seats that are produced are sold. The 

registration rate is not artificially lowered due to seats being exported to other countries, 

or by seats that are poor sellers being destroyed. Only recalled seats are, under some

8 
circumstances, removed from circulation, and in such a case are considered “campaigned 

units.” 

Manufacturers are required to retain registration data for at least six years from the date 

of manufacture of the seat. As noted in Section 1.1, the longest time span from date of 

manufacture to recall at the time of the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation was 51⁄2 years, 

with the average being 26 months. It is of interest to look at how many consumers could 

be contacted after a certain time span should a recall occur. Several sources of data 

provide an overall estimate of the percentage of people likely to relocate over a given 

time. 

The Census Bureau reports1

 that 23.3% of individuals age 1 to 4 relocated from March 

1999 to March 2000. About 60 percent of those that move do so within the same county. 

The same document reports, in another table2

, that 23 percent of households with children 

under the age of six moved in the same time period. Obviously, some households have 

more than one child under the age of six. However, 23 percent can be used as an upper 

bound estimate of how many families with children in child seats would move in any 

given year. In that case, one would expect at least 57 percent of households with children 

less than two years old to be at the same address after 26 months. This was determined 

as 0 , where 0.77 is the percent of the population not moving (100 percent 

less the upper bound of 23 percent moving annually), and 26/12 is the span of time (on 

average, in months) from production of a child seat to its recall. More simply, the 

number of people remaining after two years had passed would be calculated as 0.77 x 

0.77, or 0.77

.77 0.57 26 /12 =

2

. Months must be converted to years, since the percentage of those moving 

is reported in years. The same method can be used to determine the percentage of people 

remaining in a given location after various periods of time. Thus, after two and a half 

years (30 months), about 52 percent of families with children in this age group would 

remain at the same location, and after three years, about 46 percent. 

Data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) was 

used for its report on duration of residence3

. It states that 43 percent of people had lived 

in their current residence three years or less, and 58 percent had lived there six years or 

less. Thus, 42 percent (100 less 58 percent) had moved to their current residence during 

the previous six years. 

The recall audit examined for this report (see Section 4.2) found that 43 percent of 

registered seat owners could still be contacted six to seven years after the seat had been 

manufactured. This is not necessarily inconsistent with the census data. Using the 

formula above, or about 21 percent of families would be expected to be at the same

location six years later. This is assuming a constant rate of relocation. However, those 

with young children tend to change residence at a higher rate than those with older 

children. Thus, the rate of relocating would be lower as the child(ren) grew older. Note 

also that not all child seat owners in the recall audit were individual consumers. Rather, 

some were hospitals and other organizations, which would be more likely to remain at the 

same address. Organizations also frequently buy large numbers of seats. In addition, as 

children age, households have a lower mobility. Adjusting the percent moving as the 

6 0.77

9 
children grow older (so that more than 80 percent remain stable in a given year) would 

increase those expected to remain at the same location. 

The number of seat owners still at the same address is a necessary factor in determining 

how many consumers could be reached in the event of a recall. Recall notices are 

required by law to be sent as First Class mail. In the event that the addressee has moved 

and filed a change of address form, such mail is forwarded for one year. For the 

thirteenth through eighteenth month, mail will be returned to the sender with the intended 

recipient’s new address attached. After 18 months, or if the mail is undeliverable at any 

time, the notice is returned with the reason for nondelivery attached. Note that, despite 

the requirement, it has been found that recall notices are not always sent via first class 

mail. Notices sent at the standard mail rate, without an Ancillary Service Endorsement, 

are disposed of, even if the intended recipient has filed a change of address form. Thus, 

those no longer living at the address at which the seat was registered will not receive the 

notice if it is sent via standard mail. The US Census reports that about 43 million 

Americans moved between March 1999 and March 2000.4 According to the US Postal 

Service, 44 million change-of-address cards were processed in 2001.5

 Using this 

information, an upper and lower limit of consumers that will be notified of a recall can be 

determined. The upper bound would be more correct if the notices are forwarded to those 

who had moved. The lower bound assumes no notices are forwarded. 

Using 77 percent as those not moving in a given year, Exhibit 2-1 presents the percent of 

child seat owners that would still be receiving mail at the address from which they 

registered. Note that values in the column “Mail not Forwarded” are also the percent of 

consumers still residing at the address on file. When mail is not forwarded, the percent of 

consumers that can still be contacted is determined as described in the section above. 

When mail is forwarded, there is a one-year lag before the child seat owner would not be 

able to be contacted. 

Exhibit 2-1: Child Seat Owners that would Receive 

Mail Sent to Address used to Register 

Percent that would Receive Notice 

Time Since 

Registration 

Mail 

Forwarded 

Mail not 

Forwarded 

0 months 100 100

6 months 100 88 

1 year 100 77 

1.5 years 88 68 

2 years 77 59 

2.5 years 68 52 

3 years 59 46 

Section 3.2.5 discusses child seat acquisition for those participating on the consumer 

survey. About 84 percent of respondents were the original owner of the child seat in 

question, having either purchased it new or received it new as a gift, for either the child 

10 
currently using it or an older sibling. Let us assume all child seats remain with their 

original owner for two years, that eight percent have changed hands at 2.5 years, and 

sixteen percent at three years. Thus, with 84 percent of child seats being used by the 

original owner, and 46 percent of those owners still at the registered address, one would 

expect to be able to contact about 50 percent of registered users three years after the seat 

was manufactured if the recall notice was forwarded. If the notice were not forwarded, 

about 39 of registered users would receive the notice. Given 27 percent of seats are 

registered, this would mean about 13.4 percent of all owners of child seats involved in a 

recall three years after manufacture would be able to be contacted if the notices were 

forwarded, and 10.4 percent if they were not forwarded. Exhibit 2-2 presents the 

expected percent of child seat owners that manufacturers would be able to contact at 

various time intervals, given the available information and necessary assumptions. 

Exhibit 2-2: Child Seat Owners Manufacturers Would Be Able to Contact in Event 

of a Recall 

Percent Able to Contact 

Time Since 

Registration 

Mail 

Forwarded 

Mail not 

Forwarded 

0 months 27.0 27.0

6 months 27.0 23.8

1 year 27.0 20.8

1.5 years 23.8 18.4

2 years 20.8 15.9

2.5 years 16.9 12.9

3 years 13.4 10.4

Changing residence, something that families with young children tend to do to, is a large 

part of the percent of owners that can be contacted, and something over which NHTSA 

and child seat manufacturers have no control. 

Although not required by law, child seat manufacturers can improve recall compliance 

rates by resending any recall notices that are returned to them with an updated address. 

NHTSA does not monitor whether notices are remailed to forwarding addresses. 

Although means are provided for consumers to update their address directly with the 

manufacturer, this doesn’t seem to be utilized as much as it could be. Manufacturers can 

and do make registration updating easy by providing toll-free phone numbers and internet 

sites at which changes of address can be filed. Greater emphasis on keeping registration 

information updated could improve on this. For example, the U.S. Post Office provides 

checklists and other information to assist when moving to a new address. Along with 

reminders to notify, for example, water and cable companies, including a note to update 

contact information for registered child seats could encourage seat owners to do so. 

2.2 Recall Information 

The ultimate goal of requiring registration cards to be included with child seats was to 

increase child seat owners’ response to recalls. If consumers are made more aware of the 

11 
occurrence of a recall, there is greater opportunity for them to participate. Therefore, an 

important measure of the success of the program is the change in the rate of consumer 

response. Certainly, the specifics of any recall, such as how long ago the seat was 

produced or how hazardous consumers view the situation, will have an effect on the 

number of people that respond. In addition, other factors since the inclusion of the 

registration card, such as more awareness of child seat safety, may have influenced the 

percent of recall respondents. Overall, however, if the recall repair rate has increased 

since the registration card requirement began, then it can be said that the cards are, at

least in part, responsible. 

Child seat manufacturers are required to provide NHTSA with specific data on the 

production of child seats. In addition, when a recall occurs, information must be 

provided over an ongoing period to keep NHTSA informed of the number of seats that 

are known to be non-compliant, as well as those that have been repaired. These data will 

be used to evaluate the recall repair rates before and after the registration card 

requirement. 

2.2.1 NHTSA Recall Data 

For the purposes of this analysis, a specific set of recalls was examined. Recalls 

involving label corrections only were excluded. When a label is discovered to be in 

error, a new label is typically mailed to the seat owner. These are ”unverifiable” recalls, 

since there is no confirmation made that the label is actually placed on the seat. Thus, 

correction data for this type of recall is not as reliable. In addition, consumers may view 

such a recall as less serious than one in which the seat performance is affected, and might 

not bother responding to it. It would introduce additional variance to perform a 

combined analysis of label and non-label recalls, giving an accurate picture of neither. 

The Office of Defects Investigation collects data over a period of six quarters. Five 

recalls initiated in 2001, and three initiated in 2000, did not yet have a full six quarters of 

data. Since the number of repaired or even involved seats can change over this time, 

these were excluded from the analysis. 

When a seat is discovered to be defective or non-compliant, but the company has gone 

out of business, there is no corrective action that can be done to the seat. When this 

occurs, NHTSA issues a press release to inform consumers of the recall, but the seat itself 

is not repaired. In such cases, no data on rates of repair are available. In addition, small 

companies producing only a limited number of child seats have been excluded from this 

analysis. 

While most defects are discovered within a relatively short time, some are not discovered 

until years after production. As noted in Chapter 1, the average length of time between 

the manufacture date and recall date, as stated in the Preliminary and Final Regulatory 

Evaluations, was 26 months at that time. In addition, some child seat models are 

produced over a long span of time. If such a model is eventually recalled, seats that were 

produced several years previously are usually included. In such cases, the seat is rarely 

still used by the original purchaser, having been passed on or discarded. Of course, the 

12 
seat could also be in use by a younger sibling, but the time span involved makes such 

cases unusual. 

In order to account for both time factors – recalls occurring either long after production 

or involving seats produced over an extended period – the midpoint of production was 

utilized. This was determined as the month midway between the start of production and 

the end of production of the specific non-compliant child seat. The midpoint of 

production is an approximate average seat build date for those seats involved in a 

particular recall. Using this allows a comparison of the time span from this average build 

date to the recall date for each of the various recalls involved. This provides an average 

age of the seat at the time of the recall. 

Production of a child seat may be discontinued because of various market factors, or due 

to a recall. Some recalls do not involve all seats of a specific model. For example, if a 

particular fabric is found to not meet flammability standards, only child seats using the 

fabric will be recalled. Seats of the same model made with other fabrics would not be 

involved in the recall. Thus, for this evaluation, the end of production for the noncompliant seat would be considered to be when those seats with the flammable fabric are 

no longer produced. Production of the seat could be continued, with modifications. 

Throughout this evaluation, whenever the term “midpoint of production” is used, it refers 

to the date determined as described above. 

The creation date of the manufacturer’s defect/noncompliance report that NHTSA 

receives is referred to as the 573 date. This refers to the location in the Code of Federal 

Regulations of the requirement that manufacturers notify NHTSA about a defect or 

noncompliance. The regulation is in 49 CFR Part 573, thus the term “573 date.” 

The time span from the midpoint of production to the 573 date was ascertained. In one 

case, the notice was received by NHTSA in July of 1993, while the seat was produced 

from June through October of 1993, at which point notification of the recall was sent to 

seat owners. Thus, the 573 date was a month prior to the midpoint of production. At the 

other extreme, one seat had a 573 date nearly four years (46 months) after the midpoint of 

production. This seat was produced from January 1993 through June 1999, and recalled 

in 1999. 

Exhibit 2-3 presents a plot of the number of months from the midpoint of production to 

the recall by the percent of seats that were repaired, excluding those data mentioned 

previously as not being part of the current analysis. 

The relationship between the length of time from production to recall and the repair rate 

is an important one to consider. Note the very low percent repaired when this goes 

beyond approximately two years. For those seats with a production to recall midpoint 

beyond two years, there is a very small likelihood of it being repaired in a recall. Also, 

note that the highest response rates are associated with very short production to recall 

time spans. However, not every recall with a short time span has a high rate of response. 

For recalls with a production to recall midpoint of less than 18 months (except the two 

13 
rates close to 100 percent) there appears to be a weaker, yet still negative, relationship 

between length of time to recall and repair rate. That is, longer time spans are associated 

with lower repair rates, but the relationship is not as strong as when the time lag is 

beyond one-and-one-half or two years. 

Exhibit 2-3: Midpoint between Production and Recall, by Percent of Seats Repaired 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

-1 6 13 20 27 34 41 48

Midpoint production to Recall (months)

Percent Repaired

For various reasons, the longer it is between the production of a child seat and a recall, 

the lower the repair rate. As time passes, children grow out of the seats and some remain 

unused. Seats that are damaged may be discarded. Others are passed on to a friend or 

family member, or sold, often without the benefit of registration. Owners may have 

moved to a new address. Thus, one avenue of learning about a recall is closed to such

owners. As shown in Exhibit 2-3 above, the general relationship is negative, although 

not strictly linear. Recalls extending more than approximately two years beyond the 

midpoint of production all had repair rates of around six percent or less. 

Safe Kids Buckle Up events were held throughout the United States from February 

through September of 2001. At these events, parents and others had the opportunity to 

obtain information on child seat safety. In addition, consumers shared information on 

their child seats. Fifty-one percent of the 15,785 child seats seen had been manufactured 

since the year 2000. An addition 19.5 percent had been manufactured in 1999. Note that 

those attending a Safe Kids Buckle Up event are not necessarily representative of all 

owners of child seats. This group of people could, for example, have a greater interest in 

child seats than does the general population of seat owners, which could conceivably 

result in a non-representative sample of seats. At these events, more than half of all child 

seats currently in use were less than two years old, and about three-fourths less than three 

years old. It is not surprising, then, that recalls beyond two or three years past the date of 

manufacture achieve very low participation rates. It is not only that seats manufactured 

more than two or three years ago are not registered to the current user, but far more likely 

that the seat isn’t currently being used. 

14 
Slightly over 82 percent of child seat recalls from 1990 through 2000 (excluding label 

only and small/out of business companies as noted above) occurred within three years 

after the midpoint of production. Furthermore, 72.5 percent occurred within two years of 

the production midpoint. Given that the majority of seats in use are no older than this, 

two and three years are reasonable cutoff points when dealing with child seats. Thus, 

data will be limited to those recalls occurring within three years of the midpoint of 

production. In addition, analyses will also be examined limiting data to within two years 

of the midpoint of production to the recall. 

Data the manufacturers provide to NHTSA do not distinguish between seats that are 

repaired by individual consumers and those that are retrieved from the store shelves to be 

either repaired or removed from circulation. Clearly, the process is more efficient at the 

store level, where each seat has been shipped to a known location, than at the consumer 

level. This likely influenced two recalls with short midpoint-to-recall spans that had 

exceptionally high correction rates, 96.4 and 100 percent. These seats, for the most part, 

never reached consumers. These extremely high response rates indicate that they were 

simply removed from store shelves or storage before purchase. Therefore, since 

registration is irrelevant, these two recalls will be excluded from analysis. Note that one 

of these occurred before the change in FMVSS 213, and one after, so their inclusion 

would have little effect on differences in registration rates. The overall rate and the 

variance between recalls would be affected, however, and therefore they are excluded. 

After restricting the data in this manner, between 1990 and 2000 there were 40 recalls of 

child safety seats that took place within three years from the midpoint of production, and 

35 recalls within a span of two years. For those recalls with a two year midpoint-to-recall 

span, 17 recalls occurred before the change in FMVSS 213 and 18 after. For recalls 

within the three-year midpoint-to-recall period, 21 were before the law change, and 19 

after. The highest correction rate was 53 percent. 

The relationship between the span of time from the midpoint of production to recall and 

the repair rate (expressed as a simple percentage of seats repaired) was examined. When 

data were restricted only to within three years, the correlation was –0.496. (The negative 

value indicates that a longer time span was associated with a lower repair rate.) The tscore for this correlation was 3.5, with 38 degrees of freedom and a two-tailed probability 

of 0.0011. Restricting the data to within two years of the midpoint of production resulted 

in a correlation of –0.385. The t-score for this was 2.4, with 33 degrees of freedom and a 

probability of 0.0223. Clearly, even when data are restricted to within two years, there is 

a strong relationship between time passed and rate of repair. 

It is important that differences in repair (and registration) rates before and after the 

presence of registration cards be attributable, as much as is possible, to the presence of

the card rather than some other variable associated with the time periods. Therefore, for 

example, if the time from production to recall was consistently higher in the earlier years, 

one would expect an increase in repair rates due, at least in part, to the shorter time span. 

For that reason, it is important to look at how these time periods differ before and after 

the presence of the card.

15 
The mean number of months from the midpoint of production to the start of the recall, for 

the three-year group, was 15.1 before the card was present, and 10.2 months with the 

card. A t-tests run on the difference between these was not significant (t=1.6817, df=38, 

probability of 0.1008). For the two year group, the average number of months before was 

11.9, and with the card, 9.0 months. Again, the t-test was not significant (t=1.1952, 

df=33, probability of 0.2405). 

2.2.2 Repair Rates for Recalled Child Seats 

The number of seats involved in a recall varies greatly. The smallest recall of those used 

in this analysis involved one thousand seats; the largest, over three million. While each 

seat represents an individual, the specifics of each recall, such as the length of time it was 

manufactured, the time from production to recall, and the reason for the recall can all 

affect the percentage of people that respond to the recall. Thus, it is informative to look 

at the overall repair rate for all recalled seats as well as the average over recalls, as has 

been done. Looking at the unweighted rates would give an “average” repair rate over all 

recalls, with a recall being the unit examined. Using data weighted by the number of 

seats would give an overall rate for all seats that have been involved in recalls. Seats 

considered repaired were those that were noted as being ‘corrected’ in NHTSA’s ODI 

data. These seats could have been repaired by the consumer or returned to the 

manufacturer by the store selling them. 

Exhibit 2-4 presents the average repair rates for child safety seat recalls, before and after 

FMVSS 213 required registration cards to be included with child safety seats. Each 

recall is treated as a single data point and weighted equally, regardless of the number of 

seats involved. In this and future tables, the terms ‘Before cards’ and ‘After cards’ will 

be used to distinguish these time periods. Data are shown for the 40 recalls having a 

midpoint of production within three years of the start of the recall (“3 Year Midpoint”) 

and for the 35 recalls having the midpoint of production within two years of the start of 

the recall (“2 Year Midpoint”). These terms will also continue to be used in referring to 

these data subsets. 

Exhibit 2-4: Average Repair Rates of Recalls, Before and After Registration Card 

Requirement for Recalls 1990-2000 (Percent) 

3 Year 

Midpoint 

2 Year 

Midpoint 

Rate before cards 12.0 13.8 

Number of recalls 21 17

Standard deviation 12.6 13.5

Rate after cards 20.5 21.5

Number of recalls 19 18

Standard deviation 13.6 13.2

Percent increase after cards 70.1% 56.1%

The rates shown in Exhibit 2-4 are rounded to the nearest decimal place, but the percent 

increase is determined from data to eight decimal places. Therefore, the result may not 

16 
be identical to that calculated directly from the tabled values. Note that the overall rates 

of repair were higher when limiting data to within two years of production, but the 

increase was greater with data spanning three years. In both cases, the percent increase 

was quite high. 

T-tests were performed on the differences in rates for each group, comparing the rate 

before the registration card requirement to the rate after. Since the expectation is that the 

rate of repair would increase as a consequence of seat registration, one-tailed significance 

tests will be used for evaluating repair (and registration) rates with and without the 

registration card. For the 3-year data, the t-score of -2.04 was significant, with 38 

degrees of freedom, having a one-tailed probability of 0.0243. For data limited to within 

two years of the midpoint of production, the t-score of -1.72, with 33 degrees of freedom, 

was significant at the (one-tailed) level of 0.0475. The repair rate of recalled child seats 

did increase after registration cards were included with the seats. 

The overall repair rates of all child seats recalled from 1990 through 2000 are presented 

in Exhibit 2-5. This differs from the previous set of numbers in that, rather than looking 

at individual recalls, an individual rate is computed using all recalled seats and all 

repaired seats, for the dataset and time period in question. 

Exhibit 2-5: Repair Rates for Child Seats Involved in Recalls, Before and After 

Registration Card Requirement, Weighted by Number of Seats in Recall (Percent) 

3 Year 

Midpoint 

2 Year 

Midpoint 

Rate before cards 8.5 10.9 

Number of seats recalled 8,195,834 4,075,962

Number of seats repaired 698,871 445,495

Rate after cards 19.5 20.3

Number of seats recalled 3,949,651 3,787,001

Number of seats repaired 771,939 768,886

Percent increase after cards 129.2 % 85.8%

Note that the percent increase was calculated from the actual number of seats involved 

and repaired, and not the percentages presented, which are rounded to one decimal place. 

Both the 2- and 3-year groups show a marked increase in the percent of the total number 

of seats repaired. For the 3-year production midpoint to recall span, which includes more 

of the data, the rate more than doubled. 

Although in one sense these are “population” repair rates not subject to sampling error, 

they could also be considered weighted averages for a small number of recalls (a “cluster 

sample”). In that case, it is appropriate to test the differences of the “before” and “after” 

repair rates using the “weighted t-test” in SAS. For the three-year midpoint time span, 

the t-score of -3.36, with 38 degrees of freedom, was significant at the one-tailed 0.0009 

level. For the two-year span, the t-score of -2.41, with 33 degrees of freedom, was also 

significant, with a probability of 0.0109. Whether repair rates are looked at by individual 

17 
recall, or across all recalls, a larger proportion of recalled seats are being repaired since 

the card has been required. 

Since there is a strong relationship between the lag time from production to recall and the 

repair rate, and a slight (nonsignificant) tendency toward longer lag times in the pre-1993 

recalls, there is a possibility that some of the observed increase in the repair rates after 

1993 is due to reduced lag times, rather than registration cards. A regression analysis 

would be appropriate in order to control for the effect of lag times. 

As seen in Exhibit 2-3, the relationship between time to recall and percent repaired is not 

linear. This association must be taken into account in any analysis of the data. Log-odds 

ratios of the rate of repair can be used for this analysis since they have a more linear 

relationship with the time to recall. The more extreme values are smoothed out using this 

method. The log-odds are determined as: 

log-odds = 



 





− rate

rate

1

ln

where the rate is the percentage of seats that were repaired. Values of zero would 

indicate a 50 percent (even odds) rate of repair. Any lower rate would result in negative 

log-odds, with larger negative numbers representing a lower repair rate. Note, however, 

that this is not saying that a 50 percent repair rate is a baseline measure, or is “expected” 

to occur. This is merely the value statistically represented by zero using log-odds. 

Exhibit 2-6: Results of Regression Analyses, Presence of Registration Card and 

Time from Midpoint of Production to Recall on Repair Rate Log-Odds 

Unweighted Weighted by 

Seats Involved 

3 years from production midpoint to recall

Intercept -1.52 -1.11

Card presence estimate 0.61 0.34

t-score 1.8 1.13

Probability (one-sided) 0.0404 0.1319

Time lag estimate -0.07 -0.06

t-score -3.69 -3.60

Probability (one-sided) 0.0004 0.0005

2 years from production midpoint to recall

Intercept -1.71 -1.22

Card presence estimate 0.69 0.50

t-score 2.01 1.69

Probability (one-sided) 0.0265 0.0505

Time lag estimate -0.05 -0.06

t-score -2.10 -3.01

Probability (one-sided) 0.0220 0.0025

18 
Regression analyses were performed using the GLM (General Linear Model) procedure 

in SAS. Each individual recall contributes a data point to the aggregate logistic 

regression. The dependent variable is the log-odds of the repair rate. The independent 

variables are the lag time from production to recall (in months) and the presence or 

absence of the registration card. Regressions could be run with the data points 

unweighted, or weighted by the number of seats involved in the recall. Results are shown 

in Exhibit 2-6. 

For both the two and three year sets of unweighted data, the presence of the card has a 

significant effect on the repair rate. The data weighted by the number of involved seats 

recalled within two years of the production midpoint are very close to being significant. 

Exhibit 2-7 presents the average repair rate of child seats before and after the inclusion of 

the registration card (the unweighted data), using log-odds. These rates have been 

reconverted back to the percent of seats repaired, and can be interpreted as such. 

Exhibit 2-7: Average Repair Rate Log-Odds of Recalls, Before and After 

Registration Card Requirement (Percent) 

3 Year 

Midpoint 

2 Year 

Midpoint 

Before cards 9.6 10.1

After cards 16.1 18.2

Percent increase after cards 67.7% 80.5%

Exhibit 2-8 presents the log-odds repair rates before and after registration cards were 

included for the all recalled child seats combined (the weighted data). 

Exhibit 2-8: Repair Rates Log-Odds for Child Seats Involved in Recalls, Before and 

After Registration Card Requirement (Percent) 

3 Year 

Midpoint 

2 Year 

Midpoint 

Before cards 14.4 17.2

After cards 19.1 28.5

Percent increase after cards 32.4% 65.2%

The repair rates themselves are higher when the data are examined in aggregate form, 

rather than by individual recall. The percent increase after the inclusion of the 

registration card is larger when recalls are considered individually. With the weighted, or 

aggregate, data, a few very large recalls greatly overshadow the remaining ones. The 

results are more a reflection of those recalls than recalls in general. However, they do 

represent a large number of individual consumers, so it is important to examine these 

rates. 

19 
2.3 Conclusions 

Documented consumer response to child seat registration and recalls has been examined. 

There is, of course, a relationship between seat registration and recall compliance. With 

a greater number of seats registered, manufacturers are able to directly notify consumers 

in the event of a recall. Since registration cards have been required for all child seats, 

both registration and recall participation have increased. 

2.3.1 Results of Registration Analyses 

Registration of child seats was less than three percent before registration cards were 

required. Today, about 27 percent of child seats are registered. Given that the one 

manufacturer providing non-postage-paid warranty cards saw a return rate of ten percent, 

it is likely that other factors are also influencing this high return rate. More awareness of 

passenger safety in general, and child passenger safety in particular, have probably 

helped increase the percent of consumers registering their child seats. However, the fact 

that the form is very easy to complete, and the postage is paid, greatly influences the 

higher rate of registration. Without a convenient and accessible method of allowing seats 

to be registered, however, it is unlikely that such awareness would have resulted in as 

many seat registrations. 

The registration cards were designed about ten years ago, before internet access was 

common. Today a large number of people use the internet and have e-mail accounts. 

Adding a space on the registration card for an e-mail address could increase recall 

notification. Initial recall notices could first be sent via e-mail, which would be far 

quicker to produce and distribute. This e-mail notification should be supplemental to the 

physical notice that is mailed. Although this would only be useful to those with an e-mail 

address, they would learn about the recall almost instantly. An additional use for the email address could be to verify the current address of the consumer, or as a potential 

method of contacting those who have relocated. 

Relocating does not necessarily mean changing employment also. When new parents 

move, it is frequently within the same county. The possibility is great that they are not 

changing jobs, but only residence. If a work e-mail address were used to register the 

child seat, contact information would remain valid even when the person changed homes. 

Similarly, relocating does not necessarily mean the personal e-mail address has to 

change. It could be suggested that, when filling out the registration card, seat owners 

include the e-mail address they feel has the greatest likelihood to remain valid for six 

years (the time span manufacturers are required to keep records). Having an easy method 

to update the e-mail address, such as on the manufacturers web site, could also help 

improve notification. Of course, the e-mail address, like all personal information 

provided by the consumer, should remain confidential with the manufacturer, and be used 

for no other purpose than recall notification. 

The CPSC offers several free e-mail subscription services, including one specifically for 

recalls involving risk to a child. The online form to receive the e-mails is located at 

http://list.cpsc.gov/

20 
NHTSA brochures dealing with child seats, such as Buying a Safer Car for Child 

Passengers could mention the list and note how consumers can sign up. A link on 

NHTSA web page is also suggested. In addition, notes in NHTSA brochures suggesting 

seat owners register should be more prominent. 

2.3.2 Results of Recall Compliance Analyses 

In the analyses presented, it is clear that consumer response to recalls has increased since 

FMVSS 213 was amended to require registration cards be included with child seats. 

Estimates of repair rates ranged from 8.5 to 17.2 percent before registration cards, and 

from 16.1 to 28.5 after. The increase after registration cards were required ranged from 

32.4 to 129.2 percent. 

While several estimates have been discussed, perhaps the overall “best” estimate would 

be the unweighted data limited to within two years of production (Exhibit 2-4). Each 

recall is unique, and the repair rate can be effected by, among other things, the specific 

defect involved and the length of time since the seat was manufactured. While the 

weighted data is valuable in describing how consumers have responded, the overall effect 

of requiring registration cards is better demonstrated by looking at each recall as an equal 

unit. Restricting the time lag to two years includes most of the cases (35 of the 40 

qualifying for this analysis). Once more than two years have passed since the 

manufacturer of the seat, however, time has a far greater influence on the repair rate than 

any other factor. The unweighted data restricted to two years had a repair rate of 13.8 

percent before and 21.5 percent after, an increase of 56 percent (in relative terms), or 7.7 

percentage points (in absolute terms). 

The change in repair rates is not necessarily due only to the presence of registration cards. 

Other factors, such as better media announcements and greater safety awareness by 

parents, may also play a role. However, the size of the increase is consistent with other 

findings of this report. Section 2.1 discussed the increase in registrations since the cards 

have been required. Before the requirement for registration cards, fewer than three 

percent of all seats were registered. Now, about 27 percent are, an increase of 24 

percentage points. 

Chapter 4, Section 4.3.6, presents the results of a consumer survey, which found that 21.7 

percent of registered owners of child seats involved in a recall first found out about it 

through a letter from the manufacturer (Exhibit 4-9, General Survey). Regardless of how 

they first found out, 56.5 percent of registered owners in the General Survey remembered 

being notified by the manufacturer. It is likely that some of the 21.7 percent that first 

learned of the recall via a letter from the manufacturer heard about it elsewhere, again, at 

a later date. Moreover, some proportion of the 56.5 percent that remembered a letter 

from the manufacturer certainly also heard about it elsewhere. Although consumers 

report hearing about the recall from other sources, such as television and word of mouth, 

it is unknown how confident they are at that point that the recall applies to them. Child 

seat recalls are for specific models of seats, sometimes restricted by production dates 

and/or serial numbers. Even if consumers hear of the recall from another source, the 

manufacturer’s letter may be the key piece of information that prompts their awareness of 

21 
the recall, or elicits their responding to it. Thus, the most likely percent of registered 

owners that depend heavily on the manufacture’s notification to realize their child seat is 

involved in a recall is probably between the 21.7 percent that first heard from the 

manufacturer, and the 56.5 percent that heard about the recall from the manufacturer at 

some point. Somewhere in this range is the percent of registered owners who would not 

have known of the recall, or would not have responded to it, had it not been for the 

manufacturer’s notification letter. 

Consumers that were aware of a recall had their seats repaired at a rate of 84.2 percent 

(Section 4.3.7). Most of those choosing not to repair their seats no longer used or owned 

the seat. Bearing in mind that registration increased by 24 percentage points, consumers 

learn about the recall from the manufacturer’s letter between 21.7 and 56.5 percent of the 

time, and 84.2 percent of seat owners aware of a recall will repair the seat, the predicted 

increase in recall response, due to increased registration, is 4.4 to 11.4 percent. 

(Calculated as 0.24 x 0.217 (lower bound) or 0.565 (upper bound) x 0.842). Thus, the 

lower bound would be determined at 0.24 x 0.217 x 0.842 = 0.044. The actual rate of 

recall response, according to data provided to NHTSA by the manufacturers (and 

reported in Exhibit 2-2), went from 13.8 to 21.5, an increase of 7.7 percentage points. 

This is within the range predicted above. 

More consumers are aware of recalls than had been in the past, at least in part due to the 

registration process. It follows that this would translate into a larger percent of child 

seats being repaired or replaced. The increase in the percentage of consumers 

participating in recalls is clear. This, in turn, has resulted in a greater level of protection 

for their children. 

The time from when a child seat is produced to when it is recalled heavily influences the 

number of seats eventually repaired. This strong relationship has been noted several 

times. In the extreme, when a defect is found in testing before the seat leaves the 

manufacturer’s warehouse, all seats can be repaired or removed from circulation before 

they reach the public. Of course, not all defects can be found through testing new seats. 

Some defects are not apparent until there is wear on the seat, only happening after months 

or even years of use. In any case, the sooner defects are identified, the higher the chances 

they will be repaired. 

22 
Chapter 2 Footnotes

1. Geographic Mobility March 1999 to March 2000 Detailed Tables, Table 1. 

Current Population Survey. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic and Statistics 

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/p20-538/tab01.txt

2. Geographic Mobility March 1999 to March 2000 Detailed Tables, Table 14. 

Current Population Survey. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic and Statistics 

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/p20-538/tab14.txt

3. Hansen, K. A. Seasonality of Moves and Duration of Residence, Current

Population Reports, Household Economic Studies, P70-66. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Economic and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

October, 1998. 

4. Geographic Mobility March 1999 to March 2000 Detailed Tables. Current 

Population Survey. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic and Statistics Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

5. 2001 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations. United States Postal 

Service, p 63.

23 
24 
Chapter 3: Consumer Response

Consumer response is at the heart of child seat registration and, ultimately, recall 

compliance. At the time the Final Regulatory Evaluation was written in 1992, before 

there was a requirement to include registration cards with child safety seats, public 

announcements were the main process by which manufacturers informed consumers 

about child restraint recalls. 

A survey of child seat owners with children younger than two years was conducted 

during March and April, 2001, for this evaluation. (The survey instrument is presented in 

Appendix A.) Questions were asked of these consumers to find out, for example, why 

people do or don’t register their seats, the importance they place on registration and 

recalls, and what information or assistance is provided in stores. 

3.1 Consumer Survey Background 

The names of potential survey respondents were obtained from a targeted list of 4,500 

households with children less than two years old. The list, purchased from a sampling 

house, was originally generated from a combination of self-reported data, commercial 

data, and public record information. Sources for the data included hospital records of 

recent births, users of coupons for free merchandise, baby store mailing lists, warranty

cards for a variety of products, and similar sources. If the list included a large amount of 

self-reported information, as opposed to hospital records, it is possible that including 

consumers that provided information and/or returned a warranty card for another product 

could result in higher than average registration rates for safety seats. However, people 

who are particularly cautious with such information would be unlikely to participate in 

the survey, even if they were randomly contacted. Individual names were not identified 

as to their source. In addition, any particular name could have been included in the 

database from multiple sources. Because of this, and since the database is constantly 

updated, it is not possible to determine a definitive breakdown of the exact makeup of the 

targeted sample used for this survey, but other than the concerns mentioned should not 

affect the results. 

The list was stratified by: 

• age group (half with children under six months of age, half at least six to 23 

months old) 

• area of residence (Northeast, Midwest, South, West) structured so as to reflect the 

relative proportion of the U.S. population in each census region

and was distributed as shown in Exhibit 3-1. Goals were set to provide a sample that 

would be geographically representative of the country, with an equal number in each age 

group. A pilot study was conducted in January 2001, and the final questionnaire 

modified based on findings from the pretest. This consisted principally of simplifying 

and/or expanding answer choices. The final survey was conducted over a 17-day period, 

from March 20 through April 4, 2001, and on April 12 and 13, 2001. 

25 
Exhibit 3-1: Sample Records by Census Region and Age Category 

Census Region Age under 

6 months 

Age 6 to 

23 months 

Total 

CR1 Northeast 428 428 856

CR2 Midwest 523 523 1,046

CR3 South 803 803 1,606

CR4 West 496 496 992

Total 2,250 2,250 4,500

Data were gathered using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. 

The CATI system displays individual questions on a computer terminal. The interviewer 

reads the question to the respondent over the telephone, and records the respondent’s 

answer directly into the computer. The survey is programmed so that only relevant 

questions are presented for a specific respondent. The question appearing on the 

computer screen is dependent on previous answers. For example, those that stated they 

had borrowed their child seat would not be asked where it had been purchased. 

In the pilot study, it was necessary to contact 75 households to obtain ten completed 

surveys (five with children under six months and five with children age six to 23 

months), a resulting response rate of 13.3%. Goal numbers for the full survey were 

determined for each age/census region cell, based on the population distribution and the 

expected response rate from the pilot study. The goal and actual numbers of completed 

interviews, by age group and Census region, are presented in Exhibit 3-2. 

Exhibit 3-2: Goal and Actual Completed Interviews by Quota Cell 

Quota Cell Goal Actual Percent 

of Total 

Under six months 

CR1 Northeast 52 52 9.2 

CR2 Midwest 64 64 11.3 

CR3 South 98 100 17.7 

CR4 West 61 71 12.6 

Total under 6 mo 275 287 

Under two years 

CR1 Northeast 52 53 9.4 

CR2 Midwest 64 65 11.5 

CR3 South 98 98 17.4 

CR4 West 61 61 10.8 

Total under 2 years 275 277 

Total 550 564 100

As an alternative to using a targeted list, random digit dialing was considered. While it is 

true that a different population of consumers would have been sampled using random

digit dialing, it was felt that the use of a targeted list would benefit the study. The 

26 
consumers on the list were, at some point, willing to provide personal information to 

someone, which may be related to behavior concerning sending in a registration card. 

However, it is likely that those people especially concerned with privacy might also not 

have responded to the survey. Therefore, it is felt that the use of a targeted list did not 

adversely affect the study. 

The use of this list did, however, allow a larger sample size at a lower cost, and at less of 

a burden on the public. Of the original sample, 4,165 consumers were called at least 

once. Exhibit 3-3 shows the resolution of these calls. There were 566 completed 

surveys, for a response rate of 13.6%, very close to that of the pilot study. This is a very 

good rate of response, likely reflecting consumer interest in child safety. However, the 

sample consisted entirely of households believed to have a child age 2 or under. If 

households had not been pre-screened on that factor, a much larger number of consumers 

would have had to have been contacted. Before deciding to use the targeted list, NHTSA 

estimated a response rate of just 1%, given the requirement of having a child age two or 

under as well as being willing to participate. 

Exhibit 3-3: General survey - Attempted Sample Records by Final Disposition 

Call Disposition Count Percent 

Completed interviews 566 13.6 

Refusals 484 11.6

Other calls not producing data 3,115 74.8 

 Answering machine 1,056 25.4 

 No answer 662 15.9 

 Non-working number 313 7.5 

 Wrong number 203 4.9 

 Busy 200 4.8 

 Call back 190 4.6 

 No safety seat used 127 3.0 

 Blocked call/privacy manager 118 2.8 

 Age quota met 99 2.4 

 Language problem 54 1.3 

 Fax/modem line 46 1.1 

 Contact not available 42 1.0 

 Child uses booster or built-in seat 3 0.1 

 Duplicate sample 2 0.0 

Total 4,165 100%

Obtaining a completion rate of over 13 percent is excellent. A recent NHTSA report 

employed a survey to study consumers’ use and knowledge of country of origin label on 

motor vehicles1

. Random Digit Dialing, stratified by county, state, Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, and Census Region, was used. Respondents were required to either have 

purchased a new vehicle in the last six months, or be in the market to purchase one within 

27 
three months. In that survey, 646 complete interviews resulted from a total of 17,839, or 

a completion rate of 3.6%, much lower than the 13.6% in the current survey. In addition, 

there were 839 refusals in the label survey, or about 1.3 refusals per complete interview. 

In the current survey, with 566 complete interviews and 484 refusals, there were 0.86 

refusals per complete interview. This likely reflects the high interest consumers have in 

child seat safety. It is an important topic to them, and they are willing to give their time

by participating in what they consider a worthwhile study. The content label survey had 

6,558 contacts that were considered successful, people who were willing to participate 

but were not planning to purchase a new vehicle in the near future and had not recently 

done so. In addition, there were 9,796 other calls that did not produce data, consisting of 

many of the same circumstances as those calls listed for the present survey in Exhibit 3-3. 

It should be noted that while two people indicated that they had completed the interview 

at an earlier date (listed as Duplicate Sample above in Exhibit 3-3), no evidence could be 

found that either had been previously contacted, during either the pilot study or the full 

survey. Also, while a total of 566 interviews was completed, as shown in Exhibit 3-2, 

only 564 interviews were usable. Two of the respondents were deleted during 

verification/editing of the data, due to apparent age inconsistencies that could not be 

corrected by follow-up calls to the respondents. 

3.2 Consumer Survey Results 

In addition to the survey of the general population with children up to age 23 months, a 

survey was also conducted of consumers known to have been previously involved in a 

recall. Also, a number of the respondents to the General survey had owned a child safety 

seat that had been recalled. Information on the recall-related experiences of consumers 

will be presented in Chapter 4, which covers the impact of the registration requirement on 

recalls. 

As stated previously, respondents were selected based on the child’s age and region of 

the country. Since the composition of the completed interviews closely matched the goal 

for each cell, further weighting of the data to accomplish a nationally representative 

geographic sample is unnecessary. This is not the case, however, for children’s ages. 

Although equal samples were desired for the ‘Under 6 month’ and ‘6 to 23 months’ 

groups, since the second age group covers three times the age span, there are roughly 

three times as many children nationally in that group. 

Therefore, to obtain nationally representative estimates, when the age groups are 

combined they will be weighted appropriately. Specifically, of all children in the U.S. 

age two and under, 73.86% are over six months old, while the remaining 26.14% are 

under six months. The survey sample contained 287 respondents with a child under 6 

months old, and 277 with a child age 6 months to 2 years. Thus, the weighting factor for 

the younger group is 0.2614/287, and for the older group, 0.7386/277. This allows the 

data to more accurately represent each of the age groups, while accounting for the slight

difference in their sample sizes. When the data are weighted in this way, the percentages 

obtained will be nationally representative. Whenever percentages are presented for data 

that is not grouped by the age of the child, the data are weighted unless otherwise 

28 
specified. Individual counts refer the actual number of respondents, not a population 

based weighted number. 

Respondents were screened for eligibility before the survey was administered. The 

person named on the targeted list was requested, and the purpose of the study briefly 

described. The survey taker stated that questions would be asked about any child safety 

seats that were currently owned or being borrowed by the household, for use by a young 

child that lived either full- or part-time in the household. It was stated that this did not 

include seats built into a vehicle, but only those purchased separately and installed into 

the vehicle. If the respondent owned more than one child seat for a child in the 

appropriate age group, they were asked to consider only the most recently obtained. If 

the respondent was using child seats for children in both age groups, the CATI program 

assigned him or her to one of the age groups, and the survey taker asked them to consider 

that seat only. 

The type of child seat used was of interest. Exhibit 3-4 presents the type of child restraint 

used overall (weighted) as well as separated by age group (unweighted). The survey 

specifically asked about a child seat currently being used by a child in the household. 

The choices offered to respondents were rear-facing infant seat, convertible seat, 

forward-facing child seat, or some other kind. Convertible seats were defined to the 

respondents as those seats that can be installed as either rear- or forward-facing. No one 

reported using a booster seat or any other type of child seat, and only one respondent, in 

the younger age grouping, reported not knowing what type of seat she owned. 

Exhibit 3-4: Type of Child Seat by Age Group (Percent) 

Type of Child Seat Overall Under 6 

months 

6-11 

months 

12 to 17 

months 

18 months to 

23 months 

Rear-facing 34.2 75.9 45.7 4.7 4.4

Convertible 42.9 22.4 48.9 55.8 47.8

Forward-facing 22.9 1.7 5.3 39.5 47.8

Data in Exhibit 3-4 are broken out by 6-month age groupings, showing the percent within 

each age group using a particular type of seat. This makes it easier to see changes as they 

occur as children age across equal-size age groups. The sample size for each age group 

cell is shown in Exhibit 3-5. 

Exhibit 3-5: Type of Child Seat by Age Group (Cell Size) 

Type of Child Seat Under 6 

months 

6 to 11 

months 

12 to 17 

months 

18 to 23 

months 

Rear-facing 217 129 12 12

Convertible 64 138 144 132

Forward-facing 5 15 102 132

Total 286 282 258 276

29 
The sample size of the 6 to 23 month age group is approximately equal to that of the 

under 6 month age group. However, there are roughly the same number of children in 

each 6 month age grouping. Therefore, the N for each cell in the 6 to 23 month groups 

has been multiplied by 3 for easier comparison across age groups. 

Depending on the size and age of the child, those in the older age groups might be 

appropriately seated in either a rear- or forward-facing child seat. Children may be 

moved to a forward facing seat at one year of age and when they weigh about 20 pounds. 

Those in the youngest age group in this survey should be seated in a rear-facing child 

seat. Only 1.7% (5 of the 286 children for whom type of seat was recorded) of this group 

was reported to be in a forward-facing seat. More than three fourths of the younger 

children were reported to be in rear-facing child seat, with the remainder reported to be in 

convertible seats. 

Note that the number of children in each age group is relatively constant. This suggests 

that children, specifically those that are using child seats at an early age, continue to use

them as they grow older. Very few children are “graduating” out of safety seats, at least 

before the age of two. While the children in the ‘Under 6 months group’ were sampled 

separately, the remaining children made up a single group at the time data were sampled. 

Respondents were asked if a safety seat was being used by a child at least six months old 

but under the age of two. (They were also asked if a child seat was being used by a child 

under the age of six months, and were randomly assigned if they responded positively to 

both questions.) If large numbers of children were not continuing to use safety seats as 

they age, a larger proportion of the sample would have been in the younger segment of 

the group. Fortunately, instead, all segments are approximately equal. 

As the data in Exhibits 3-4 and 3-5 show, infants in rear-facing seats are either moved to 

a convertible seat between 6 and 11 months, or to a convertible or forward-facing seat by 

their first birthday. While about three-fourths of infants under six months old are 

reported to be in rear-facing seats, by the time they reach their first birthday they are 

evenly divided between convertible and forward-facing seats. It may be that infants 

reported to be in rear-facing child seats are actually in convertible seats in the rear-facing 

position. This would account for the large number of children less than six months of age 

reported to be in rear-facing seats who later, apparently, switch to a convertible seat. 

Other possibilities are that a convertible seat is purchased and used only as a forwardfacing seat, or that the child later moves into a convertible seat handed down from a 

friend, relative, or even older sibling within the household. 

3.2.1 General Demographics 

As background, some general demographics at this point would be useful. Later, when 

examining specific topics in detail, they will be investigated according to relevant 

demographic data. The data presented in this section are not weighted, since the sample 

itself is being described. The majority of (adult) respondents in the survey, 83.9%, were 

female. Since the targeted list came from, among other sources, doctor and hospital 

records, this would be expected. Almost half (47.9%) live in a suburban neighborhood, 

with 27.9% in rural areas and 21.5% in urban. About three percent either didn’t know or 

30 
refused to say the type of area. The age groups are presented in Exhibit 3-6, overall and 

by sex of the respondent. The males in this survey tend to be older. Females have higher 

percentages in the two youngest age groups, while males have higher percentages in the 

oldest three. Age groups are broken out by ten-year age ranges, except for those under 

21. Since the oldest respondent was 55, the final age group is listed as ’51-55.’ 

Exhibit 3-6: Age Groups of Adult Respondent (Percent, Unweighted) 

Age 

Group 

Overall Female Male

Under 21 6.9 7.8 2.2

21-30 42.0 43.2 35.6

31-40 44.1 43.6 46.7

41-50 5.4 4.1 12.2

51-55 1.6 1.3 3.3

The marital status of respondents is presented in Exhibit 3-7. Given that the sample 

consists of those with a child less than two years of age, it is not surprising that the 

overwhelming majority of respondents are married. 

Exhibit 3-7: Marital Status of Respondents (Percent, Unweighted) 

Marital Status Percent 

Married/living as married 87.5 

Divorced/separated 1.6 

Widowed 0.4 

Single/never married 9.4 

Refused to answer 1.1 

Respondents were also asked the number of children under age 13 living in the 

household. Exhibit 3-8 presents these data for those respondents that provided it. Five 

respondents chose not to answer this question. The majority of respondents (53.1%) had 

one child. 

Exhibit 3-8: Number of Children Under Age 13 (Percent, Unweighted) 

Number of 

Children Percent 

1 53.1 

2 29.7 

3 11.4 

4 4.7 

5 0.9 

6 0.2 

31 
Consumers were asked to identify whether or not they were of Hispanic background, and, 

in a separate question, their race. The options for these questions mirrored the groupings 

used by the U.S. Census Bureau. However, there was some confusion in the data. 

Respondents were first asked whether they were of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 

background or cultural heritage. After this was answered, they were then asked for their 

race and given the choices White, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska 

Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or Some Other Race. A number 

of people responded “Some Other Race” and then specified Hispanic as the race. 

Therefore, in order to report the data as accurately as possible, when race is considered, 

those reporting Hispanic background will be combined into a separate group, regardless 

of whether or not race was reported. Hispanic background and race are reported in 

Exhibit 3-9, with data from the Census Bureau2

 provided also. The five respondents 

listing two races (none listed more) are included in the ‘Other’ group. 

 

Exhibit 3-9: Race and Hispanic Background (Percent, Unweighted) 

Race/Hispanic Background Survey Census 

White (non-Hispanic) 79.8 71.9

Black/African American 4.8 12.1

Hispanic any race 9.9 11.5

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5 0.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.7 3.7

Other race(s) 1.1 - 

Refuse to answer 1.2 - 

Overall, the present survey overrepresents Whites and underrepresents other races by 

varying degrees. Because the numbers are small, further analyses looking at race will 

combine the American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander groups with the 

‘Other’ group. 

Educational level of the respondent and, where appropriate, his or her spouse, was 

recorded. The data are presented in Exhibit 3-10, with married couples represented by 

the higher education level in the household. The levels shown in the table are somewhat 

condensed from the data collected in the survey. Some of the groups had small numbers 

of respondents, and therefore were combined with a larger group of similar education 

level. Appendix A provides the full consumer survey as it was presented. 

Exhibit 3-10: Education Level of Respondents (Percent, Unweighted) 

Education Level Percent 

High school grad or less 21.1 

Some college 21.5 

Associate/B.A. degree 37.6 

Advanced degree 18.1 

Refuse to answer 1.8 

32 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median family household income in 1999 was 

$49,9403

. The Census Bureau defines a family household as one that “... includes a 

householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the 

householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.”4

 Since all households in the present survey 

had children under the age of two living in them, a family can be assumed. The median

income for those in the present survey was in the $50,000 to $60,000 range, slightly 

higher than the national average. 

In the United States, about 76.8% of all family households consist of married-couple 

families, with a median income of $56,827. In the present survey, 88.5% of the 

respondents reporting marital status consisted of married households, with median 

income (of those reporting their income) in the $50,000 to $60,000 range. In the U.S., 

17.6% of family households are headed by a single female, with a median income of 

$26,164. About 10.6% of the respondents to this survey were single females, with a 

median income in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. Single males make up 5.6% of U.S. 

family households, with a median income of $41,838. In the present survey, only four 

respondents (less than one percent) were single males, and their median income was in 

the $40,000 to $50,000 range. Overall, each household’s median income range in the 

survey contained the U.S. median for the type of family. As mentioned previously, since 

these are all households with children under the age of two, it is not surprising that a 

larger proportion is married than is found in the general population. The sample used for 

this analysis appears to be representative of U.S. families with young children. 

3.2.2 Child Safety Seat Registration 

Consumers were asked whether the child safety seat they obtained came with a 

registration card. The registration card was briefly described to respondents at the 

beginning of this section of questions. Overall, 73.8% of the respondents said that a 

mail-in registration card came with the seat, and 14% said there was no card. A fairly 

large group, 12.2%, could either not remember whether there was a card, or refused to 

answer the question. Therefore, of those that could remember and did answer, 84% 

stated that a registration card was included with their seat. 

The rule requiring registration cards became effective early in 1993. Only three 

respondents had obtained their seats prior to this. Two said a registration card was 

included, and one could not remember. Some child seat manufacturers did include 

warranty cards in earlier years. Not all respondents obtained their seat new, in which 

case some of them would not have had a card come with the seat when they got it. 

Those consumers that stated there was a registration card when they got their seat were 

asked whether they filled the card out and mailed it. Of those that agreed to answer this 

question and remembered whether they sent the card in or not, 75.2% said they did mail 

their card in. Those with children in the younger age group returned the form at a slightly 

higher percent – 79% vs 74% of those with children over six months of age. 

More than 12 percent of respondents could not or would not say whether a registration 

card came with their child seat. However, if the seat was purchased new after 1993, it 

33 
almost certainly came with a card. Although it is possible that the seat was tampered 

with, the seat was produced before the rule took effect, or a problem at the manufacturer 

resulted in a seat being produced without a card attached, these scenarios are highly 

unlikely. The odds are overwhelming that twelve percent of the respondents did not 

purchase seats under such circumstances. Far more likely is that the respondent did not 

notice the registration card, did not realize what it was, or misrepresented what actually 

occurred. 

If the assumption is made that any new seat purchased after 1993 came with a registration 

card, alternative registration rates can be determined. Respondents that received a seat as 

a gift were not asked if it was new or used, so no assumption can be made with this group 

regarding the presence of a card. People who were given a seat by a friend or relative 

who had used it and would no longer need it likely would consider it a gift. In the present 

survey, these were not specifically distinguished from those receiving the seat as, for 

example, a gift at a baby shower. Consumers that said no card came with their seat were, 

of course, not asked if they mailed it in. 

A registration rate was calculated for only those who purchased their seat new and/or 

reported that a card came with the seat. Included in the denominator were those who 

either purchased their seat new or received one as a gift with the registration card 

included, and returned the registration card. The numerator included all those who 

purchased their seat new, as well as those who received one as a gift and reported the 

card was present. The registration rate in this case was 61.8 percent. 

Looking only at those that purchased their seat new (and therefore it presumably came

with a registration card) can provide an additional registration rate. Those that did not 

state a card came with the seat were assumed to not have mailed it in. For those that 

purchased their seat new, 61.6 percent registered it. This is extremely close to the 

previously calculated rate of 61.8 percent. 

The same assumption, that a registration card necessarily came with any seat purchased 

new, can be used in determining a registration rate for the full group of respondents. 

Additionally, if the respondent did not specifically state the card was mailed in (i.e. 

refused or did not recall), the assumption can be made that the card was not returned. 

This would present a stricter, more conservative rate. This rate would primarily be 

calculated on those initially obtaining the seat. Those purchasing a used seat, receiving a 

gift handed down from another family’s child, or borrowing from a friend, relative, or 

loaner program would not be the original recipient of the seat. In most of these cases, 

there would no longer be a registration card to mail in. Under these circumstances, the 

manufacturer can be contacted by mail or phone to register the seat. However, this report 

focuses on registration by first time owners who would have obtained a card when the 

seat was acquired. 

Specifically, the rate was determined with these assumptions: 

• if the seat was purchased new, a card was present 

34 
• if a card was present (stated or assumed) and not specifically stated to have been 

mailed, the seat was not registered. (That is, those saying they didn’t remember 

mailing the card or refusing to answer whether they did or not were assumed not 

to have mailed the card.) 

• those who did not purchase a seat new, and did not specifically state a card came 

with the seat, were not included in the calculation (That is, if it was stated that 

there was no card, or if the person could not remember if there was a card or 

refused to answer, the respondent was not included in the rate determination.). 

The overall registration rate, determined in this manner, was 62.3 percent. 

Note that in the previous chapter it was found that, on average, about 27 percent of child 

seats are actually registered, based on manufacturer-reported counts of seats sold and 

card returned. The large gap between observed and reported registration is a concern. 

Several factors likely contribute to this difference. Observed registration rates for this

report were determined by dividing the number of registered seats (provided to NHTSA 

by the manufacturers) by the number of seats manufactured. There is some ambiguity in 

these calculations, since seats sold in one year may be registered in the following (or even 

later) year. Several years of data were combined to compensate for this. The registration 

rate would increase if either the number of seats registered was larger, or the number of 

seats sold or manufactured was smaller. 

In an attempt to reconcile observed and reported registration rates, it was considered that 

the number of child seats manufactured might not be the correct denominator. If many 

seats were being exported and not registered, then the rate would increase since it would 

be calculated on a smaller basis. Examination of manufacturer data showed this was not 

the case. It was also considered that a large number of seats were removed from

circulation if, for example, they hadn’t sold well. Through communication with a major 

retailer, it was learned that a seat’s price would be reduced until it was sold. Such seats

were not destroyed or returned to the manufacturer. 

There is the possibility that survey respondents were not accurate in reporting 

registration. They may have, for example, registered a seat purchased earlier but not 

registered the one in question. Alternatively, they may have meant to, but never actually 

mailed the card. They may have erroneously assumed their spouse or someone else had 

sent the card in. It may be that a number of respondents were not truthful, either putting 

themselves in a better light or reporting what they thought the survey taker wanted them

to say, rather than what had actually occurred. 

Similar problems occur when determining restraint use. Process and Outcome 

Evaluation of the Buckle Up America Initiatives5

 reports on both observed and self 

reported belt use. Restraint data from the National Occupant Protection Use Survey 

(NOPUS), an observational study, and self-reported information from the Motor Vehicle 

Occupant Safety Survey (MVOSS) are presented. The only directly comparable rates in 

the report are for adult front seat belt use in 1996. No more recent data are presented for 

the same year for both surveys. At that time, observed use (NOPUS) was 61 percent 

35 
while reported use was (MVOSS) 76 percent. Reported use was 15 percentage points 

higher than observed use. While this is a smaller difference than was found in the current 

report, where manufacturers report that 27 percent of child seats are registered but more 

than 62 percent of respondents stated that they had registered their seats, probably similar 

factors are at work. 

What perhaps accounts for a large part of the difference between reported and observed 

registration in the present report is a self-selection bias. Recall that consumers were 

contacted from a targeted list of parents of young children. As noted in Section 3.1, it is 

possible that using such a list influenced the study, in that people who were willing to 

provide information that resulted in their being placed on such a list might also be more 

likely to send in a registration card. Again, however, people unwilling to provide this 

type of information would have also been unlikely to participate in the survey. As such, 

any voluntary survey will result in a larger proportion of respondents willing to provide 

information, whether it’s to a caller on the phone or a child seat manufacturer. 

As reported in Exhibit 3-3, about a quarter of the phone calls made for the survey were 

answered by an answering machine. About three percent were calls blocked by a privacy 

manager, and nearly 16 percent were not answered. It is likely that a substantial 

proportion of these were due to people screening telephone calls, being unwilling to 

provide information or take the time to participate in the survey. In all probability, were 

these people able to be questioned, the survey would have shown a registration rate closer 

to the actual 27 percent.

Since the inconsistency remains, it is clear that respondents to the present survey did not 

report registration behavior in a way that is typical of child seat owners’ actual behavior. 

It is important, then, to determine which responses, if any, are inordinately influenced by 

this difference. One that immediately comes to mind involves the reasons people choose 

not to register their child seats. Recall that only about two percent of respondents said it 

was because of concern as to how their personal information would be used. However, 

the question was asked only of those respondents that stated they had not registered their 

child seat, so the discrepancy between observed and reported response rates would not be 

an issue. 

Looked at differently, the population of consumers that (in reality) do not register their 

seats is made up of those that would not have participated in the survey, those that would 

have given wrong information and said they did register, and those that would have stated 

no card was mailed. From the current survey, about two percent of those in the third 

group (the only one of the three for which this information is available) were concerned 

about the use of the information. Even if a much larger percentage of the other two 

groups were concerned about the use of information, it would still be a small percentage 

of the total number of people that (in reality) do not register their child seats. The actual 

percentage would depend on the relative proportions of each group that make up those 

that do not register, and the percent of each group with this concern. 

One statistic that likely is affected by actual vs reported registration concerns the percent 

that said they had registered and were involved in a recall, and whether or not they ever 

36 
received notification from the manufacturer. When asked if they remembered being 

notified by the manufacturer, only 56.5 percent of those in the General survey stated they 

did. When respondents in the Recall survey were included, the percent of those stating

they received a letter from the manufacturer jumped to over 77 percent. If respondents 

were not accurate in their answer about registering their seats, then some portion of 

(actual) non-registered owners were asked whether they had ever heard from the 

manufacturer. If they had indeed not registered, they of course would not have heard 

from the manufacturer. Exhibit 4-9 shows another substantial difference between those 

in the Recall survey (where respondents were known to have registered) and the General 

survey. Recall survey participants first heard about the recall from the manufacturer 

about 88 percent of the time, while those in the General survey did so about 22 percent of 

the time. 

The major findings of this report, however, should not be affected even if some number 

of General survey participants misrepresented registering their seats. Clearly, child seat 

registration has increased since the cards have been required. In addition, child seat 

registration and the recall of unsafe seats are seen as important by the overwhelming 

majority of consumers. The reasons given as to why people do or do not register, even 

about whether they fear how the information would be used, and that those discussing 

registration at the time they acquire the seat are more likely to register, are other 

important points that remain valid. 

3.2.3 Child Safety Seat Registration Demographic Data 

Throughout the remainder of this chapter, registration rates are compared for various 

subgroups of survey participants. These rates average out to 62 percent. In reviewing the 

tables, readers should keep in mind that if they had been based on the general population 

rather than survey participants, they would average out to 27 percent – but the relative

differences between subgroups might be similar to the tables. It is also educational to 

know which specific groups of people do or do not mail in their registration card. 

Therefore, registration rates were determined for several types of demographic groups, in 

an attempt to better describe the situation. 

Exhibit 3-11: Registration Rates by Census Region 

Census Region Overall Age under 

6 months 

Age 6 months 

to 2 years 

CR1 Northeast 61.0 73.3 57.1

CR2 Midwest 74.5 77.4 73.6

CR3 South 58.2 52.5 60.0

CR4 West 57.6 68.0 54.0

Nation 62.3 65.8 61.2

Exhibit 3-11 presents the rates of registration by Census Region. Note that nationwide, 

and in most individual regions, the return rate for registration cards is higher for those 

with children in the younger age group. In the South, however, this is reversed. Overall, 

the Midwest has a much higher return rate than the other regions. 

37 
A chi-square test was run on the unweighted data to test the differences in registration 

rates among regions. SAS, the statistical package used to analyze the data, does not 

adequately account for weighted samples in chi-square tests. When data are weighted, 

SAS interprets that as the number of observations rather than a weighting factor, which 

results in testing the data with less variability than is actually present. Therefore, 

unweighted data will be used for the analysis. The unweighted registration rates were, in 

the Northeast, 64.9%; Midwest, 75.5%; South, 56.5%; West, 61.0%. There is little 

difference between the rates in the weighted and unweighted data. The resulting chisquare of 10.514, with 3 degrees of freedom, has a probability of 0.015. There are 

significant differences in the registration rates in different regions of the country. The 

Midwest has the highest overall rate of registration, and the South, the lowest. 

 

Exhibit 3-12: Registration Rates by Age Group (Percent, Weighted) 

Age 

Group 

Percent 

Registered 

Under 21 54.3 

21-30 56.4 

31-40 68.9 

41-50 72.2 

51-55 40.3 

If specific groups of people that are less likely to register a child seat can be identified, 

programs can be aimed at these groups in an attempt to increase registration. Looking at 

the return rate of registration cards by various demographic factors would help pinpoint 

such groups. Exhibit 3-12 presents the registration rates by age group of the respondent. 

The pattern here is clear – the registration rate increases with age. The youngest age 

group, those under 21, had a registration rate substantially lower than the survey average 

of 62.3. Although the 51-55 age group also has a very low rate, there is a very small 

number of respondents in that age group. It should be noted that the largest groups were 

the 21 to 30 and 31 to 40 year olds. 

A logistic regression was run on the age of the adult, using the actual ages rather than 

grouping them, to determine its influence on registering a child seat. As for the previous 

significance tests, unweighted data were used. The resulting chi-square of 4.5875, with a 

probability of 0.0322, shows that the age of the respondent does affect the likelihood of 

whether or not a child seat is registered. Older applicants are more likely than younger 

ones to register a child seat, all other circumstances being equal. 

Registration rate by marital status is presented in Exhibit 3-13 Since so few of the 

respondents were divorced or widowed, they were combined with the ‘Single’ group. 

Note that, for those participating in this survey, marital status was heavily influenced by 

age, with the younger consumers much more likely to be single. Thus, although those 

that were single were less likely to register, this is related to the fact that those in the 

youngest age group were more likely to be single. 

38 
Exhibit 3-13: Registration Rate by Marital Status (Percent, Weighted) 

Marital Status Registration

Rate 

Single 48.9 

Married 64.0 

There was little difference in the registration rates between those with one child (62.9% 

returned the cards) and those with two or more children (62.0%). 

Exhibit 3-14 presents the registration rates by race and Hispanic background. A chisquare test was run on registration rates by race, including only those races with enough 

data to be individually represented. The ‘Other race(s)’ category was excluded. Using 

the unweighted data, the resulting chi-square was 2.693, with 2 degrees of freedom and a 

probability of 0.260. Thus, the difference in registration rates among races was not 

significant. There is no significant difference among the race/ethnic groups for rate of 

registration. (Recall that Hispanics could be of any race, and that the survey was 

presented in English only.) 

 

Exhibit 3-14: Registration Rate by Race/Hispanic Background (Percent, Weighted) 

Race/Background Registration Rate

White (non-Hispanic) 63.1 

Black/African American 55.4 

Hispanic (any race) 61.3 

Other race(s) 56.8 

Education seems to influence return rates of registration cards, as shown in Exhibit 3-15. 

Levels have been combined from those recorded in the survey, as shown in Exhibit 3-10. 

Note that the lowest rate of return was for those with no college experience. On the other 

hand, those with an advanced degree were very likely to have returned the registration 

card. 

Exhibit 3-15: Registration Rates by Education Level (Percent, Weighted) 

Education Level Registration 

Rate 

High school grad or less 53.6 

Some college 57.6 

Associate/B.A. degree 64.0 

Advanced degree 73.2 

A logistic regression was run on the number of years of schooling as a predictor of 

registration. The available data did not contain the actual years of schooling, but rather, 

information on highest degree completed. Therefore, estimates were made to represent 

the most probable number of years of school. For those that stated they had less than a 

39 
high school education, 10 years of schooling was used. The number of years of 

schooling for the remaining choices was: high school graduate or GED, 12; some

college, 13; associate degree, 14; bachelors degree, 16; Masters degree, 18; and Doctorate 

or Professional degree, 20 years of schooling. While it is true that any particular 

respondent in a specific education category may have had more or fewer years of 

schooling, it is felt that these numbers best represent the most likely numbers overall. 

The resulting chi-square of 10.1687 had a probability of 0.0014, showing that education 

has a very strong association with the likelihood of registering a child seat. As was seen 

earlier, age is also a strong predictor. As consumers age, they are more likely to register 

a child safety seat. Age and education are themselves associated, in that respondents may 

very well further their education as they age. Another influencing factor may be that, 

since the study involves households with a child under the age of two, there may be even 

more of an age/schooling relationship than in the general population. Older respondents 

may very well have put off childbirth until after completing a desired level of education. 

Finally, income level also appears to influence the rate of registration. Respondents were 

grouped into three income levels, with approximately one-third of respondents in each. 

The resulting groups were those with household income under $40,000, those ranging 

from $40,000 to $70,000, and those above $70,000. Registration rates are shown in 

Exhibit 3-16. There was little difference between the higher two income levels, but those 

earning under $40,000 annually registered their seats at a lower rate. 

Exhibit 3-16: Registration Rates by Income Level (Percent, Weighted) 

Income Level Registration

Rate 

Under $40,000 54.0 

$40,000-$70,000 64.0 

Over $70,000 68.7 

The logistic regression run on the influence of income on registration had a resulting chisquare of 4.0738, with a probability of 0.0436, just significant at the 0.05 level. Thus, it 

can be said that, as income increase, so does the probability of registering the child seat. 

The available data only grouped respondents into income groups, and did not provide an 

exact dollar amount. Therefore, the midpoint of each group was used. For those in the 

“under $20,000” group, a value of $15,000 was used, and for those making over $70,000 

per year, an estimate of $100,000 was used. 

Overall, then, the consumers with the lowest rates of registration are those that are young 

and those in the lower income and education groups. Higher registration rates are seen at 

the higher age, income and education levels. 

3.2.4 Reasons for Registering/Not Registering Child Seats 

Consumers that reported returning the card were asked why they did so. Respondents 

were permitted to select multiple responses. Three people selected three responses, while 

40 
45 chose two responses. Three others did not give any response, and are not included in 

the percentages below. The remainder chose a single response. Because the (weighted) 

percent of respondents selecting each option is reported, the totals will sum to more than 

100%. An exceptionally high 95.1% of the respondents that returned the card (and 

provided a reason) did so to allow notification of recall. Clearly, consumers understand 

the purpose of the registration card. The straightforward design of the card is, without a 

doubt, getting the message across. In addition, 15.3% returned the card to provide 

warranty protection, and 2% because someone else told them to return it. Other reasons 

were specified by 3.4% of the respondents. Four respondents said they always return 

registrations for all products they purchase. Two people returned the card because the 

card itself says it was important, and another two said they sent it in because it came with 

the child seat. One person had had a seat recalled in the past, and felt it was important to 

mail in the card. Another person could give no specific reason. One person stated the 

reason she returned the card was that she works in a law firm. 

Those people that explicitly reported they did not return their card were also asked why. 

Multiple responses were again permitted. No one selected more than two choices, and 

this occurred only four times. Since only four respondents selected more than one 

response, and were recorded in the order given, data are presented in Exhibit 3-17 for 

what each respondent considered the most important reason the registration card was not 

returned. Using a single reason for each respondent allows the data to be looked at 

further without complicating the situation with multiple responses while still counting 

each individual only once. Note that only those consumers that specifically stated they

did not send the card in could be asked to give a reason, and therefore only they are 

included in this section. Consumers who, for example, purchased their seat new and said 

no card was included are considered ‘non-registered’ for purpose of registration rates (see 

above) but contribute no data here. 

Exhibit 3-17: Reasons Registration Card was Not Returned (Percent, Weighted) 

Reason for Not Returning Card Percent 

Too busy 85.2 

Lost card 6.0 

Consider unimportant 2.8 

Concerned about use of information 2.2 

Other 3.8 

Consumers said the main reason they did not return the card was that they were too busy 

and just never got around to it. This response was selected by 85.2% of respondents. 

The card was lost or misplaced by 6.0% of the respondents, and 2.2% were concerned 

about the potential uses of the information they would need to provide. Respondents 

were not explicitly asked what specific potential use of the information concerned them. 

Potential concerns could have been that the information would be shared with 

telemarketers, possible identity theft, or just a general invasion of privacy. Another 

concern could have been identifying the location of a child, which could lead to someone 

stalking or otherwise harming the child. 

41 
It is especially encouraging that only 2.2 percent of those not registering (0.4% of all 

respondents) are hostile to the card because of concerns regarding privacy. Another 2.8 

percent of those not sending in the card don’t see the need to register a child seat. 

However, the 85.2 percent of non-registers who said they were too busy might also be 

considered as people who don’t understand the importance of the card. Had they 

considered it important, likely they would have found or taken the time to complete the 

card and mail it in. 

An option that was offered but never selected was having a handicap or literacy problem

that prevented the form from being filled out and mailed. The remaining 6.6% (8 

respondents) specified a reason not among the choices given. Two of these had just 

purchased the seat within the last two days and had not gotten around to sending in the 

card. Another did not have a permanent address. The remaining five can be grouped 

together under the category of ‘Consider registration unimportant and/or don’t understand 

the need to register.’ Although small, this is an important group, since these are people 

that are not receiving the message that child seat registration is important. However, the 

much larger group who were “too busy” to send in the card could also be interpreted as 

not considering it very important. 

There are differences in the stated reason for not returning the registration card across age 

groups. Although being too busy is mentioned by the majority of respondents regardless 

of age, the proportion decreases by about 8% for each increasing age group. Also, losing 

the card was reported by about ten percent of the 21 to 30 year olds, but few others. The 

only group with any concern regarding the use of information was the 31 to 40 year old 

group. Recall that in order for the respondent to state a reason for not returning the 

registration card, they had to specifically state that they did receive a card with the seat 

and did not mail it in. Because of this, some of the age groups have such small sample 

sizes. Therefore, they are combined into two groups as presented in Exhibit 3-18, and the 

statistical testing that follows. 

Exhibit 3-18: Reasons Registration Card was Not Returned, by Age Group 

(Percent, Weighted) 

Reason for Not Returning Card 30 and 

Under 31-50 

Too busy 88.1 76.2

Lost card 8.9 1.3

Concerned about use of information 0.0 5.3

Other 3.0 17.1

Even dividing consumers into just two age groups can still prove useful. For example, if 

younger child seat owners (a group with one of the lowest registration rates) are targeted 

for a campaign to increase registration, there is little reason to stress privacy. Those in 

this group need to be encouraged to make the time to fill in the card and return it. 

Another potential campaign aimed at the younger group could give information on what 

to do if the card has been lost, such as noting that the manufacturer’s name and address 

42 
must be identified on the seat somewhere, or that a generic form is available on the 

NHTSA website. 

A chi-square test was run on the respondent’s age group by reason for not returning the 

card. The resulting chi-square of 7.679, with 3 degrees of freedom, had a probability of 

0.053. The differences between these two age groups do significantly differ with regard 

to reasons for not registering their child seats. Younger respondents were more likely to 

state that they were either too busy or had lost the card. While the majority of older 

respondents also stated being too busy, they were much more likely than the younger 

ones to name some other reason for not sending in their card. Such reasons included not 

having a permanent address and having just bought the seat a few days earlier. 

Singles were slightly more likely than married people to report losing the card (7.8% vs 

5.3%). Concern about potential uses of the information was reported only by married 

people, but by a very small number (2.6%). 

There is little difference in reasons stated for not returning the registration card between 

families with one child and those with more. Respondents with one child were slightly 

more likely to report losing the card (7.1% vs 5.2%) and slightly less likely to report 

being too busy (81.1% vs 84.5%). 

Inspecting the data according to race and Hispanic background shows some differences 

among the groups, as shown in Exhibit 3-19. Non-Hispanic Whites are most likely to 

report being too busy – all other groups are much below the average of 83% reporting 

this. On the other hand, nationwide, about 6% report misplacing the card. Non-Hispanic 

whites are far less likely to fail to register for this reason, but those of Hispanic descent, 

Blacks/African Americans, and other races are much more likely to cite this as the reason 

when the card is not returned. Non-Hispanic whites alone report any occurrence of 

concern with the use of the information. 

Exhibit 3-19: Reasons Registration Card was Not Returned, by Race/Hispanic 

Background (Percent, Weighted) 

Race/Background White

(NonHispanic) 

Black/ 

African 

American 

Hispanic 

(any race) 

Other 

Race(s) 

Too busy 89.1 59.9 54.3 60.2

Lost card 1.4 26.6 36.4 10.2

Concerned about use of information 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 6.8 13.5 9.3 29.7

Since the numbers of respondents in the three groups other than non-Hispanic whites 

were small, a chi-square test was done to examine differences between non-Hispanic 

whites and all others in their reasons for not registering child seats. The resulting chisquare of 13.292, with 3 degrees of freedom, had a probability of 0.004. Clearly nonHispanic white respondents report different reasons for not registering their child seats 

than do the others. While respondents of all races were most likely to report being too 

43 
busy, non-Hispanic Whites stated this far more often. The other groups were more likely 

to report losing the card, or report some other reason for not registering. 

Some differences appear when reasons for not returning the card are broken out by 

income group. Across the three groups, those in the middle income group were most 

likely to report being too busy. In addition, those in the highest income group were the 

only ones concerned about uses of the information. The data are shown in Exhibit 3-20. 

Exhibit 3-20: Reasons Registration Card was Not Returned, by Income Group 

(Percent, Weighted)

Reason for Not Returning Card Under 

$40,000 

$40 to 

$70,000 

Over 

$70,000 

Too busy 83.5 92.9 65.1

Lost card 5.6 7.2 7.0

Concerned about use of information 0.0 0.0 7.0

Other 11.0 0.0 21.0

Consumers differ somewhat as to the reason for not registering based on educational 

levels, as shown in Exhibit 3-21. Those with a high school degree or less were most 

likely to report having lost the card, whereas those with either some college or an 

advanced degree were particularly likely to report being too busy to return the card. 

Exhibit 3-21: Reasons Registration Card was Not Returned, by Educational Level 

(Percent, Weighted) 

Educational Level High School 

or Less 

Some 

College 

Associate or

B.A. Degree

Advanced 

Degree 

Too busy 81.2 94.2 75.9 94.9

Lost card 10.5 2.9 5.3 0.0

Concerned about 

use of information 

0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0

Other 8.3 2.9 13.4 5.1

Overall, then, the majority of those that do not return their registration card give the 

reason that they are just too busy. This is especially true for those that are under age 21, 

Whites, those in the middle ($40,000 to $70,000) income range, and those with either 

some college or an advanced degree. Although nowhere near as prevalent as stating they 

were too busy, the only other reason a sizable number of people gave for not registering 

was that they lost the card. This is especially true for those aged 21 through 30, 

Blacks/African Americans, those of Hispanic background, and those with a high school 

degree or less. 

3.2.5 Acquisition of a Child Restraint 

Of those respondents that could remember the approximate month and year their seat was 

obtained, 37.9% had acquired it within the previous 6 months. Another 24.9% had gotten 

44 
the seat 7 to 12 months earlier, and 19.1% had gotten it more than one year but less than 

two years earlier. The remaining 18.1% had gotten their seat more than two years earlier. 

The earliest a seat had been purchased was January 1991, over ten years ago. These data 

are similar to the information provided by consumers at Safe Kids events, presented in 

Section 2.2.1. 

When looked at by age group of the child, the data reflect what would be expected. A

larger percentage of those with children under 6 months obtained their seat within the 

previous 6 months (56.3%) than did those with children age 6 months to two years 

(31.3%). The percentages of seats acquired 7 to 12 months ago were about equal for the 

younger (23.7%) and older (25.4) age groups. For the younger age group, only 4.7% 

were obtained 1 to 2 years ago, while 24.3% of those with older children acquired their 

seat during that time. Logically this makes sense, since a seat purchased over a year ago 

could have been used for the child in the older age group throughout the time period. The 

remaining 15.3% of those in the younger group, and 19 percent in the older, acquired 

their seat over two years earlier. In general, those in the younger group acquired their 

seat more recently than did those in the older group. This could potentially influence 

how accurately information was recalled throughout the survey. Of course, seats 

obtained many months or years ago may have originally been for an older child in the 

household. 

Exhibit 3-22: How Child Restraint was Acquired (Percent, by Age Group) 

How Seat was Acquired Overall Under 6 

months 

6 months 

to 2 years 

Purchased 

 For this child 

 New 48.6 39.0 52.0

 Used 2.9 3.8 2.5

 For an older sibling 

 New 11.0 9.4 11.6

 Used 0.5 0.0 0.7

Received as gift 

 For this child 

 New 18.1 23.3 16.6

 Used 6.8 8.7 6.1

 For an older sibling 

 New 5.8 7.0 5.4

 Used 1.9 2.1 1.8

Borrowed from friend/relative 2.5 5.6 1.4

Loaner program 0.4 0.7 0.4

Other 1.1 1.1 1.1

No answer 0.4 0.4 0.4

How the seat was acquired potentially has an influence on registration. The data on 

acquisition are shown in Exhibit 3-22. Note that the percents given in these exhibits may 

45 
not sum to 100%, due to rounding. There are numerous ways in which child seats are 

acquired. The survey specifically asked whether the seat had been purchased, received as 

a gift, borrowed from either a friend/relative or a loaner program, or some other way that 

the respondent could specify. Those reporting they had purchased their seat were asked 

if it had been new or used. 

Although the survey didn’t ask this for those receiving seats as a gift, it is possible that 

such seats could also be either new or used. For example, friends or relatives may have 

given the respondent a no-longer-used child seat, which would be categorized as a gift. 

Since the new/used issue is particularly relevant to child seat registration, it was 

important to distinguish new from previously used seats as accurately as possible. The 

seat may have been acquired for this child, or it could have been a hand-me-down from

an older sibling in the same household. 

The presence or absence of a registration card was used to determine whether a seat that 

was obtained as a gift was new or used. The assumption was made that new seats would 

have the card, while for used seats it would have been missing. Respondents were not 

directly asked whether their seat was previously used for an older child. However, if an 

infant or convertible seat was obtained more than nine months before the child’s birth, or 

a forward-facing seat obtained more than nine months before the child’s first birthday, 

and there was an older child in the household, the seat was assumed to have been used 

originally for an older child. In actuality, about 85 percent of the all seats determined in 

this way to have been previously used for an older sibling were obtained a year or more 

before the subject child was born. Thus, the likelihood of the seat having been used for 

the first time for the child currently using the seat is very small. 

Overall, about twice as many people had purchased their child restraint (63.1%) as had 

received it as a gift (32.6%). Of those that purchased the seat themselves, 94.6% bought 

the seat new, and only 5.4% bought a used seat. There is little difference between the 

children’s age groups on this. The overwhelming majority of those that purchased their 

seat did so at a store (91.6%). Others purchased theirs at garage sales (2.4%), on the 

internet (2.3%) and through mail order catalogs (1.0%). Other sources mentioned by one 

or two respondents were an individual, an auction, police department, a class on child 

seats, a hospital, a car dealer, and directly from the manufacturer. There was little 

difference between the younger and older child age groups with regard to the 

circumstances of seat purchase. Among those that purchased their child restraint, over 

90% of each group bought the seat new, and over 90% of them bought it at a store. 

Those with children in the younger group bought the seat less frequently (52.6%) than 

did those with older children (66.8%), but received it as a gift more often (40.1% vs. 

30.0%). 

Overall, approximately two-thirds (66.7%) of all respondents obtained the child safety 

seat new for the child currently using it. About half of the respondents (48.6%) bought 

the seat new for this child, while 18.1% received the new seat as a gift for the child 

currently using the seat. Looking at these respondents according to the age group of the 

46 
child using the seat shows some differences. Thirty-nine percent of those with children

under six months of age purchased their seat new for the child, while 52.0% of those with 

children between six months and two years did so. Conversely, a larger proportion, 

23.3%, of those with children under six months old received the new seat as a gift for the 

child using it, while only 16.6% of those with children in the older age group did. This 

may be related to traditional gift giving behavior such as baby showers, where an 

expectant parent receives a child seat as a gift. A seat usable by a child in the younger 

age group would be a more likely gift. 

The majority of child seat owners either purchased their seat or received it as a gift. The 

few remaining respondents that reported how the seat had been acquired had borrowed it 

from a friend or relative (2.5%) or borrowed it from a loaner program (0.4%). In 

addition, the survey allowed respondents to select the option ‘Other’ and then give more 

information, which 1.1% did. In the younger age group, two had been given the seat by 

the hospital in which they had given birth, and one stated she had bought it in a ‘grab 

sale’. For those in the older age group, one gave no further information and two had been 

given the seat by the hospital. 

A separate survey of retailers, as well as interviews with loaner programs, was 

undertaken for this report. These data will be presented in Chapters 5 and 6. 

About 84 percent of all respondents obtained a new seat, whether purchased or received 

as a gift. Twelve percent obtained a used seat, with nearly three-fourths of these being 

gifts. Used seats are assumed to not come with a registration card, unless the respondent 

specifically stated otherwise. This is how a used seat was defined for gifts, and only one 

of the twenty seats purchased used was accompanied by a card. Overall, nearly 90% of 

people that bought their seat and about 81% of those that received one as a gift noted the 

presence of the registration card. Only about 22% of those that borrowed a seat from a 

friend or relative received a registration card with it. Since these seats were owned by a 

previous user, it is not surprising that such a small percentage came with a registration 

card. Indeed, it would be hoped that the card had been sent in by the owner of the seat, 

and not be available to be loaned out with the seat. The amendment of FMVSS 213 

included provisions for these types of situations by requiring an address and phone 

number of the manufacturer for registering the seat to be included on the restraint 

labeling. It is also possible that the original owner removed and saved, but did not mail 

in, the registration card from the child seat, and the subsequent seat user found the card 

among the owners manual and other papers. 

Registration rates for seats that were obtained new have been calculated based on how the 

seat was acquired, and are shown in Exhibit 3-23. Registration rates are approximately 

the same for purchases and gifts. As above, all seats obtained new are assumed to come

with a registration card, and the seat is considered unregistered unless the respondent 

specifically states the card was mailed in. 

47 
Exhibit 3-23: Registration Rates of Child Seat for New Seats by How Seat Acquired 

and Whether for Child Currently Using Seat (Percent, Weighted) 

How Seat was Acquired Percent Registered 

Purchased for this child 60.3 

Purchased for older sibling 67.5 

Received as gift for this child 60.4 

Received as gift for older sibling 67.7 

When these data are grouped by age of the child using the seat, those that purchased their 

seat or received it as a gift did not differ. Those that borrowed the seat from a friend or 

relative, however, did. For those with a child under six months, only 14% stated that they 

received a registration card with the seat. For those with a child six months to two years 

of age, 33% said the seat came with a card. 

The two respondents with children under six months of age that borrowed their seat from

a loaner program did not receive a registration card with the seat. Presumably, the seats 

were registered by the loaner program and/or had been used previously. The one 

respondent in the older age group that borrowed from a loaner program stated a card was 

included with the seat, but was not mailed in. More information on loaner programs will 

be presented in Chapter 6. 

Four respondents, two in each age group, reported that they had been given the restraint 

in the hospital where the child was born. One of the respondents in with a child under six 

months said a card was not supplied with the seat, while the other three said they did 

receive a card. 

It is of some interest to examine registration rates by demographic data according to 

whether the seat was purchased or received as a gift. Therefore, these data are presented 

in Appendix C: Additional Tables, using the respondents’ self-reports as to whether a 

card was received when the seat was obtained. Although this discussion is not central to 

the report, some observations are worth noting at this point. While respondents under age 

21 tended to have lower registration rates overall, this is particularly true when the seat is 

received as a gift. On the other hand, those in the 41 to 50 age group had a slightly 

higher rate when the seat was received as a gift. Looking at how the seat is acquired by 

race of the respondent, it is seen that Hispanics alone have a slightly higher registration

rate when the seat is a gift. While each education level and income group shows a higher 

registration rate when the seat is purchased, those with advanced degrees and those 

making over $70,000 per year show the greatest difference in rates based on how the seat 

was obtained. 

A survey of dealers was also performed for this evaluation, and will be reported on in 

Chapter 5. However, since the dealer is an intermediary between the manufacturer and 

the consumer, and can play a role in registration, the type of store at which the seat is 

purchased is of interest. Overall, most consumers that purchased their seat at a store 

bought it at either a chain child specialty store, such as Toys a Us, or a discount 

48 
department store, such as Target. Data on where the child restraints were purchased are 

presented in Exhibit 3-24. The registration rate did not differ significantly by the type of 

store where the seat was purchased. 

Exhibit 3-24: Type of Store Where Seat Purchased 

(Percent, by Age Group of Child) 

Overall Under 6

months 

6 months 

to 2 years 

Chain child specialty store 45.3 52.9 43.2

Discount department store 39.3 28.6 42.6

Independent child specialty store 6.5 6.4 6.5

Department store 5.4 5.7 5.3

Resale shop 1.9 4.3 1.2

Military base store 0.6 0.7 0.6

Other 0.2 0.7 0.0

No answer 0.6 0.7 0.6

Consumers were asked how wide a selection of child safety seats was available when

they purchased their seat. They were asked to specify whether there were not many at all, 

a lot to choose from, somewhere in between, or if the seat that was purchased was the 

only one available. Most consumers felt they had a reasonable choice in child seats, with 

over half (54.3%) saying there were a lot to choose from, and another 31.5% saying the 

choice was somewhere in between. Only 8.7% felt there was not much of a choice, and 

4.4% purchased the only seat available. 

There were only six individuals that purchased a seat on the internet, but all felt that there 

were either a lot to choose from or somewhere in between. The majority of those that 

said the seat was the only one available (6 of the 11) purchased it at a garage sale. Three 

others with no choice of seats purchased them from individuals. 

It is of some interest to explore registration rates by demographic data according to the 

type of store from which the seat was purchased. Again, however, this discussion is not a 

focal point of the report. Therefore, these data are presented in Appendix C: Additional 

Tables. Briefly, the registration rate for those purchasing a child seat at a store was 

79.0%. Certain groups purchasing their seat at child chain specialty stores, notably 

whites, those with a high school degree or less, and those earning under $40,000 per year, 

had lower than average registration rates. Whites purchasing a seat at a department store 

also had lower rates. 

3.2.6 Information on Child Safety Seat Selection 

People that bought their seat were also asked about their main reason for selecting the 

seat they purchased. The majority, 65%, responded that they liked one or more features 

of the seat or its appearance. Nearly ten percent chose the seat because of brand loyalty 

or the brand’s reputation, and another ten percent selected the seat based on price. Data 

49 
for this is presented in Exhibit 3-25. Note that, while no one chose the option 

‘Recommended by a Non-Government Organization,’ it is important to note it was one of 

the options available. 

Exhibit 3-25: Main Reason for Selecting the Seat Purchased 

(Percent, by Age Group) 

Reason Overall Under 6

months 

6 months 

to 2 years 

Feature(s) or appearance 65.0 71.3 63.2

Brand 9.8 8.0 10.3

Price 9.6 9.3 9.7

Rec by general/consumer media 3.1 2.7 3.2

Rec by friend 2.7 2.7 2.7

Rec by government agency 2.4 1.3 2.7

Rec by child/parenting media 1.6 1.3 1.6

Rec by non-govt organization 0.0 0.0 0.0

Safety 3.4 2.0 3.8

Other 0.6 0.7 0.5

No answer 1.8 0.7 2.2

Several of the consumers that responded ‘Other’ to this question mentioned safety, so that 

is presented separately in the Exhibit. Of the two remaining respondents that answered 

‘Other,’ the one in the younger age group chose the seat because it was the only one 

available, and the consumer in the older age grouping chose the seat because there were 

two matching seats for her twins. 

Ten consumers said that it was a recommendation in a general or consumer medium that 

influenced their decision. Nine of them cited Consumer Reports magazine, and the other 

had seen it on a television program, but could not remember the program. Seven 

respondents stated that they selected the seat they purchased based on the 

recommendation of a government agency. For four of them, it was the Consumer 

Products Safety Commission, for two it was a police department, and one, NHTSA. Of 

the five consumers that said they chose their seat based on a recommendation from a 

child or parenting medium, three mentioned Parenting magazine, one Child magazine, 

and one the book, Baby Bargains. Again, no respondents based their decision on the 

recommendation of a non-government organization. 

The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) 

Act requires that NHTSA establish a child restraint safety rating consumer information 

program. The goal of the program is to provide information to consumers for use in 

making informed decisions in the purchase of a child safety seat. As part of this process, 

NHTSA reviewed existing rating systems used by other countries and organizations as 

well as conducting performance tests. As of this writing, the agency has provisionally 

concluded that the most effective consumer information system would be one that would 

give the consumer information on the ease of use of specific child restraints as well as

50 
dynamic performance. Dynamic performance would be obtained through higher-speed 

sled-testing and/or in-vehicle New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) testing. NHTSA 

published a document, available on the internet at 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CRS-Rate/Index.html

which provides a review of the information and reasoning the agency used to reach this 

conclusion, as well as describing the ratings systems planned to meet the TREAD 

requirement. Additionally, comments were sought on the plan, which were due January 

7, 2002. NHTSA is required to publish the selected plan by November 1, 2002. It is 

important to note that the survey was conducted before NHTSA began planning such a 

rating system. Thus, consumers would have no way of knowing about or using such 

information. In the future, if a survey question regarding recommendations for child seat 

selection were conducted, such a rating system would presumably be noted by 

consumers. 

Although a very small percentage of consumers reported utilizing loaner programs, each 

one that responded to the survey used a loaner program associated with a hospital. The 

choices offered by the survey were hospital, public health department, school, day care 

program, or other (to specify). Only “hospital” was selected. 

The majority (80% of the unweighted data) of consumers that borrowed their child seat 

from a friend or relative were those with children under six months. When asked the 

length of time they expected to borrow the seat, 28% of those with children under six 

months responded between two and six months, 22% between seven and twelve months, 

six percent for 13 to 24 months, and 39% for more than two years. About six percent did 

not know or refused to answer the question. For those with children between six months 

and two years of age, 40% expected to borrow the seat for seven to twelve months, and 

60% for more than two years. None of the respondents with children in the older age 

group expected to borrow the seat for one to two years, and no respondents in either 

group expected to borrow the seat for one month or less. 

3.2.7 Receiving Information Regarding Registration

Survey respondents were asked if, when they obtained their seat, anyone provided them 

with information on the registration process. If the response was positive, they were 

asked whether it was a friend or relative, a store employee, a manufacturer’s 

representative, a loaner program representative, or someone else that provided the 

information. Overall, only nine percent of consumers reported someone discussing 

registration with them at that time. Since how a child seat is obtained influences who is

available at that time, it is important to look at this factor in conjunction with who gave 

the information. 

For those that bought their seat, only 6.6 percent said that someone spoke to them about 

the registration process at the time. None of the consumers that purchased a used seat 

said registration was discussed at the time of purchase. About twelve percent of those 

that received their seat as a gift discussed registration at that time. Since speaking to 

51 
someone about registration can serve as both an incentive and a reminder to register the 

seat, this discussion should be encouraged as a potential way of increasing the 

registration rate. The overall low rate of this discussion (about one in ten consumers 

reported such an occurrence) is disappointing. However, knowing that the rate is more 

than doubled when the seat is presented as a gift is encouraging. Possibly, it may be that 

another person known to the seat owner is present when the seat is obtained and the 

discussion simply occurs. It would be beneficial to encourage those presenting a child 

seat as gift to mention registration of the seat at that time. An alternative would be for 

the gift giver to present a gift certificate to purchase a child seat. This would allow the 

new owner of the seat to select one that best meets the needs of the child and parent, as 

well as meeting any vehicle compatibility needs. This would also serve to encourage the 

parent to visit the retail store where additional educational information on the registration 

process could be obtained. In addition, friends and family members can encourage 

registration far more frequently than they currently do even when the seat is not given as 

a gift. 

Data on whether someone was spoken with regarding registration at the time the seat was 

obtained, for those that either purchased their seat new or received it as a gift, are 

presented in Exhibit 3-26. 

Exhibit 3-26: Who Consumers Spoke with Regarding Registration, 

When Seat was Obtained (Weighted) 

Person Purchased

New 

Received 

as Gift 

Friend/relative 1.8 5.2

Store employee 2.7 3.3

Manufacturer’s rep 0.7 2.5

Loaner program rep 0.0 0.3

Spoke to someone else 0.9 0.0

Don’t remember who spoken to 0.5 0.8

Spoke to no one 91.4 86.0

Don’t remember if spoke to anyone 2.0 1.9

In general, those receiving their seat as gift were much more likely to discuss registration 

at the time. Not surprisingly, those receiving the seat as a gift spoke with friends or 

relatives most often. Similarly, those who purchased the seat new were most likely to 

speak with a store employee, if anyone. The other people mentioned by those purchasing 

seats were medical personnel (e.g. a nurse) and a salesperson at the car dealership where 

the child seat was ordered. 

The two consumers that borrowed the seat from a friend or relative and discussed 

registration both discussed it with a friend or relative. Similarly, the one person that 

borrowed a seat from a loaner program and spoke to someone regarding registration 

spoke to a loaner program representative. Four respondents noted that they were given a 

52 
child seat at the hospital where their child had been born, and three of them spoke with 

someone at the hospital regarding registration. 

Exhibit 3-27: Registration Rates by How Seat Acquired and Whether Registration 

was Discussed 

How Seat Acquired/Discussion Registration 

Rate 

Purchased 

 Discussed registration 68.3 

 Did not discuss registration 62.4 

Received as gift 

 Discussed registration 71.0 

 Did not discuss registration 61.5 

The goal of speaking with someone about registration is that it will result in that person

registering the child seat. Exhibit 3-27 shows, for those who either purchased their seat 

or received it as a gift, the registration rates according to whether the seat owner 

discussed registration at the time the seat was obtained. When someone discusses 

registration with the recipient the registration rate increases regardless of how the seat is 

obtained. Encouraging those presenting child seats as gifts to mention registration to the 

recipient could be one way of increasing registration rates. 

3.2.8 Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats 

All respondents, whether or not they had ever experienced a recall, were asked for their 

opinions about the importance of registering and recalling child safety seats. Exhibit 

3-28 presents the responses, both weighted and, separately by age group, unweighted. 

Over three-fourths of the consumers believe that registering child safety seats is very or 

extremely important. Those with children in the younger age group placed slightly more 

importance on registering. 

Exhibit 3-28: Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats 

(Percent, Weighted and by Age Group) 

Overall Under 6

months 

6 months 

to 2 years 

Extremely important 37.1 41.8 35.4

Very important 39.6 40.4 39.4

Fairly important 9.4 6.3 10.5

Somewhat important 8.5 7.0 9.0

Not at all important 3.8 2.4 4.3

No opinion 1.6 2.1 1.4

It is interesting to look at consumers’ opinion of the importance of registering child seats 

with their actual behavior. Exhibit 3-29 presents the data by whether or not they reported 

mailing in the registration card. Note that more than half of the respondents that returned 

53 
the card believe that it is extremely important to register child seats. Overall, 91.6% of 

those that returned the card believe it very or extremely important to register the seats. 

While it is not surprising that those that did not return the card see it as less important 

than those that did, more than ten percent of those that did not return the card still 

considered it extremely important to register the seats, and nearly half of them considered 

it very or extremely important. 

Exhibit 3-29: Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats by Action taken with 

Registration Card (Percent, Weighted) 

Returned 

Card 

Did Not 

Return Card 

Extremely important 53.2 10.8

Very important 38.4 36.8

Fairly important 3.7 18.8

Somewhat important 4.5 16.3

Not at all important 0.2 12.2

There is an obvious relationship between how important the consumer feels it is to 

register the seat and whether he or she mails in the registration card. This suggests that, 

if a campaign could successfully convince child seat owners that registering the seat is 

important, they might be more likely to return the registration card. To that end, it is 

worthwhile to more closely examine which groups of people tend to think registration is 

less important and do not return the registration card. This information is presented in 

Appendix C. Overall, regardless of demographic groups, those that stated a belief that 

registration was important were more likely to have actually registered their child seat. 

3.2.9 Importance of Recalling Child Safety Seats 

Consumers were also asked how important they felt it was to recall unsafe child seats. 

There was general agreement in the importance of this, as shown in Exhibit 3-30. 

 

Exhibit 3-30: Importance of Recalling Unsafe Child Safety Seats (Percent, 

Weighted and by Age Group of Child) 

Overall Under 6

months 

6 months 

to 2 years 

Extremely important 61.7 64.8 60.7

Very important 36.1 34.2 36.8

Fairly important 1.2 0.7 1.4

Somewhat important 0.6 0.4 0.7 

Not at all important 0.0 0.0 0.0

No opinion 0.3 0.0 0.4

Those with children under six months of age thought it slightly more important to recall 

unsafe child seats than did those with older children. However, overall, over 97% of 

respondents thought it either very or extremely important to recall unsafe child seats, and 

54 
no one thought it not at all important. More than half of the consumers felt it extremely 

important. Although Americans are known for their strong and varied opinions, child 

safety is one issue that nearly everyone agrees is very important. 

Again looking only at those consumers that reported a card came with their child seat, 

Exhibit 3-31 shows how important respondents feel recalling a child seat by whether or 

not they returned the registration card. Indeed, those that returned the card seemed to 

place a higher importance on recalling child seats. However, even among those that did 

not mail in the registration card, more than half believe it is extremely important to recall 

unsafe child seats. 

Exhibit 3-31: Importance of Recalling Unsafe Child Safety Seats by Action taken 

with Registration Card (Percent, Weighted) 

Returned 

Card 

Did Not 

Return Card 

Extremely important 70.2 54.6

Very important 29.1 40.3

Fairly important 0.0 3.6

Somewhat important 0.7 0.0

Not at all important 0.0 0.0

No opinion 0.0 1.5

Examining the importance of recalling child seats by various demographics is useful. An 

extremely large proportion of the data is in the ‘Extremely’ and ‘Very’ Important cells. 

Even more so than for the importance ratings of registering child seats, the data for 

importance of recalling child seats would be quite sparse in the remaining cells. 

Therefore, the data will be explored for ratings of importance, but will not be further 

analyzed by registration rates. The tables with explanatory text appear in Appendix C. 

Overall, the large majority of Americans believes that recalling child seats is important. 

Even for groups with lower percentages of respondents reporting it is ‘Very Important,’ 

the majority still felt that way. This is one area in which NHTSA’s message seems to 

have spread – if a child seat is unsafe in some way, it should be recalled. It may not 

always translate into registering the seat, or even correcting the seat when it is recalled

(as will be examined in Chapter 4), but the feeling is strong that non-compliant child 

safety seats must be recalled. People know this, and do not need to be convinced this is 

true. 

3.2.10 Perceived Best Methods of Recall Notification

Clearly, whether or not the card that comes with the seat is returned, consumers feel 

strongly that it is important to recall unsafe child seats. However, recalling seats does no 

good if consumers aren’t aware of the recall. Thus, the survey asked consumers what 

they felt the most effective method of informing people of recalls. Exhibit 3-32 shows 

the overall response to this, as well as the percent for each of the two age groups of 

children. More than half of the respondents thought the most effective method of alerting 

55 
owners to child seat recalls was a letter from the manufacturer. The second most 

effective method was seen to be a television announcement, with about a fourth of the 

people selecting that. 

Exhibit 3-32: Most Effective Method of Informing Consumers of Recalls of Child 

Safety Seats (Percent, Weighted) 

Method of Informing Overall Under 6 

months 

6 months 

to 2 years 

Letter from the manufacturer 56.9 55.4 57.4

Television announcement 24.2 27.2 23.1

Notice posted in retail store 3.7 2.1 4.3

Newspaper or magazine announcement 1.8 2.8 1.4

Announcement on the internet 1.2 2.4 0.7

All of the above 11.1 9.1 11.9

Notice posted in doctor/pediatrician’s office 0.6 0.4 0.7

Other 0.5 0.7 0.4

No notification method had been previously mentioned in the survey to influence the 

respondent. Note that only the first five methods listed in the exhibit (letter from

manufacturer, television announcement, notice in store, newspaper/magazine 

announcement, internet announcement) were offered as choices, along with the option to 

specify another unlisted choice. ‘Other’ was chosen by 12.2% of respondents, with over 

90% of them saying, “All of the above.” 

A notice posted in doctor/pediatrician’s offices was also not offered as a choice, but 

because multiple respondents mentioned this, it is listed separately in the exhibit. Of the 

remaining consumers that selected another option, one mentioned radio announcements, 

one a phone call, and one person did not specify what other method was thought most 

effective. 

For those methods selected by a large number of respondents, there is no meaningful 

difference between the two age groups of children. Those with children in the younger 

age group were slightly less likely to think a letter from the manufacturer was effective, 

although still more than half of this group thought this the most effective. They were also 

more likely to think a television announcement more effective. Although the number of 

consumers selecting other choices was much smaller, there are some notable differences. 

Twice as many of the eighteen consumers stating that a notice posted in a retail store was 

the most effective method had children in the older age group. This may come from

additional parenting experience – those with children under six months of age may not 

yet appreciate the frequency with which child-centered retail stores tend to be visited in 

later years. The opposite was true for those stating that a newspaper or magazine 

announcement would be most effective – twice as many (of the twelve) respondents 

selecting this option had children in the younger age group. Three respondents chose the 

“Other” option and mentioned the doctor’s or pediatrician’s office, two of them with 

56 
children in the younger age group. This may be another artifact of having very young 

children, as recommended visits to the doctor are more frequent during the first few 

months of life. As children grow older, visits are less common, and it would be less 

likely to receive up-to-date information on recalls from this source. Interestingly, the

majority of those that responded “Other/All of the above” were those with children in the 

older age group – 33 of the 59 (55.9%) that gave this response. 

Nine consumers selected an announcement on the internet as the most effective method 

to alert owners of child seats to recalls. The large majority of these, 77.8%, had children 

in the younger age group. NHTSA posts information on child seat recalls on their web 

site at 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/recall/canister.htm

as do many other child safety organizations. An advantage of this method over 

newspaper, magazine, or television announcements is that the information is available 

when someone is looking for it, not only when it is “news.” If the consumer doesn’t own 

the seat at the time of the recall (not yet purchased, bought or borrowed secondhand, 

etc.), he or she may miss the media announcement. Notices on the internet, providing 

they stay in place, are easier to reference later, and can even be useful to those in the 

process of shopping for a car seat. NHTSA, for example, has all recalls dating back to 

January 1990. 

Exhibit 3-33 presents, for those that noted a registration card came with their child seat, 

what was reported to be the most effective method to inform consumers of recalls, in

light of whether the registration card was sent in or not. Note that those mailing in the 

registration card were far more likely to select a letter from the manufacturer as the most 

effective method than were those that did not return the card. This may be the reason that 

the card was not mailed. Alternatively, knowing they had not sent the card in could have 

influenced some consumers to choose an alternative other than a letter from the 

manufacturer. 

Exhibit 3-33: Most Effective Method of Informing Consumers of Recalls of Child 

Safety Seats (Percent, Weighted) 

Method of Informing Returned 

Card 

Did Not 

Return Card 

Letter from the manufacturer 71.9 34.7

Television announcement 11.0 40.3

Notice posted in retail store 0.2 11.2

Newspaper or magazine announcement 0.5 2.0

Announcement on the internet 0.9 2.0

All of the above 14.8 8.3

Notice posted in doctor/pediatrician’s office 0.5 0.0

Other 0.3 1.5

57 
On the other hand, those that did not return the card were much more likely to state that a 

television announcement was most effective. This was the first choice of those that did 

not return the registration card. Those that did not return the card were also more likely 

to select a notice posted in stores, or a newspaper, magazine, or internet announcement 

than were those that did return the card. Those that returned the card were also much 

more likely to have chosen ‘Other’ and said, “All of the Above.” 

Recall that about 85% of those that did not return the card said it was because they were 

too busy and just didn’t get around to it. Most consumers not returning the card report it 

was a simple oversight, rather than a deliberate decision not to return the card. Only 

about 2 percent, for example, did not return the card because they were concerned about 

the potential use of the information. However, as seen in Exhibit 3-33, there are 

meaningful differences between those that find the time to mail the card and those that 

don’t. For some reason, this group of people does not see the manufacturer’s letter 

regarding a recall as an essential part of the recall process. Indeed, they feel a televised 

announcement is a more effective method of notification. This may be why returning the 

card wasn’t important enough for them to remember. Alternatively, it may be that 

something other than the manufacturer’s letter was selected because the card had not 

been mailed. 

It is important to note that the belief that a television announcement can provide the 

necessary message to the extensive audience that needs to hear it is misleading. 

Respondents may have felt that a television announcement would be a good method since 

most people own a television and watch it for at least some amount of time each day. 

However, it is unlikely that any given person with a child seat being recalled would 

happen to catch the announcement at exactly the moment it was broadcast. True, friends, 

family, or others might see the announcement and mention it. However, with the wide 

variety of child seats available, it is improbable that people outside the home would know 

offhand exactly which seat is owned. Nor it is likely that others would continue to report 

hearing such information regularly. 

In addition, even if the message reaches the right person, he or she would need to record 

information to both verify that the manufacturer, model number, and possibly serial 

number and/or date of manufacture of his/her seat is one that is affected, and retain the 

phone number and/or address to comply with the recall. Clearly, a written notice is 

superior, particularly one that is put into the hand of the person needing it. For those that 

do not register their child seat (and therefore cannot be contacted directly by the 

manufacturer), a central location that can be updated regularly with information on 

recalls is a better solution, but only if those that need the information will access it. The 

NHTSA web site and recall information published in Consumer Reports are two good 

sources. 

The method of informing consumers of a child seat recall perceived to be most effective 

was explored by various demographic groupings. Tables of data and further information 

are presented in Appendix C. In brief, receiving a letter from the manufacturer was the 

method chosen by the largest percent of people regardless of demographic grouping. The 

58 
second most popular choice, a television announcement, was chosen more often by some

groups than others. The oldest and youngest groups, those with less education, and 

African Americans tended to select this more often than other groups. 

While a letter from the manufacturer was the overall preferred method of notification, 

several groups feel that a television announcement is nearly as effective. When the 

registration card is not returned, there is no contact information available to the 

manufacturer. In these cases, a television announcement may be the next best alternative. 

3.3 Conclusions 

Programs aimed at increasing the registration rates of child safety seats would do well to 

focus on some specific target groups with low registration rates, as well as the reason 

given for not registering associated with a particular group. The demographic groups 

with the lowest registration rates are those under age 21, those with a high school 

diploma or less education, and those making under $40,000 annually. 

Those receiving a seat as a gift were twice as likely to discuss registration at the time the 

seat was obtained than were those who purchased a seat. In addition, this discussion does 

seem to influence whether the seat is registered. A potential program here could focus on 

those giving a seat as a gift, either encouraging them to remind the recipient to register, or 

to actually register the seat for them. 

For most people that did not register, the reason given was that they were just too busy 

and never got around to it. This is especially true for those with high school or less 

education and those under the age of 21. Any programs aimed at encouraging 

registration among these groups, or for the largest population in general, would do well to 

focus on encouraging owners of child seats to make the time to fill out and mail the card, 

as it could be important to their child’s safety. The form was designed to be particularly 

easy to fill out, needing little time or effort. Campaign information could stress that it 

only takes a minute to fill in the card, and that it definitely is worth that investment of

time. Another method would be to put the card in an even more conspicuous place. 

Currently, NHTSA requires manufacturers to attach the registration card on a surface 

contacted by a test dummy properly restrained in the seat. An examination of the 

locations the cards are actually placed could be useful. If it could be determined that 

attaching the card in certain locations resulted in higher registration rates, NHTSA might 

consider being more specific with regards to where the card is attached. In addition, a 

more prominent reminder to mail in the card could also increase registration. 

Overall, fewer than six percent of those not registering said the reason was that they lost 

the form. Blacks/African Americans that did not register said the form was lost more 

than 26 percent of the time, and those of Hispanic descent, about 36 percent. Consumers 

with a high school degree or less and those age 21 to 30 also misplaced the form at a high 

rate, about ten percentfor each group. Programs would do well to include information on 

what to do in case of a lost form (such as calling the manufacturer’s number which is on 

the child seat or using the generic form on the NHTSA website) as well as encouraging 

them to find the time to make the effort. 

59 
Only about three percent of people who purchased child safety seats received advice on 

registration from the salesperson or others in the stores where they bought them. A 

brochure given to purchasers at the point-of-sale could serve as a reminder and incentive 

to register the seat. Not only would this encourage registration among those purchasing 

the seat for their own child, but also could serve to encourage those purchasing the seat as 

a gift to discuss registration when they present the seat. The vast majority of respondents 

that did not register, 85 percent, said it was because they were too busy. This makes 

sense, as new parents certainly have a great deal to keep them busy. The point-ofpurchase brochure could suggest to gift-givers that they offer to register the seat for the 

new parents (in the parents’ name). 

Expanding on this, a NHTSA promotional campaign on the registration process could be 

beneficial in raising the registration rate. The importance of child safety seat registration 

could be promoted by the use of flyers, stickers, and posters. The flyers could be 

provided to NHTSA Regional Offices and State Highway Safety Offices for distribution 

throughout the sates at checkup events, law enforcement stops, hospitals and emergency 

rooms, doctors’ offices, vehicle dealerships, etc. Posters could be posted in the child 

safety seat area of retail stores as another means for parents to receive the information. 

Stickers could be provided to doctors’ offices, vehicle dealerships, and retail stores to 

place on child seat boxes. 

The majority of consumers believe that a letter from the manufacturer is the best way to 

inform those with defective child seats of a recall. This is, of course, dependent on 

consumers registering the seats so that the manufacturers would be able to contact them 

directly. Effort must be made to inform consumers that they will not receive any letters 

unless they send in the registration card, and that television announcements are an 

unsatisfactory substitute for registration, since there is no guarantee they will be watching 

television just at the time the recall is announced. 

Child safety seats are an item with a limited lifetime for any given child. As children 

grow, they move out of infant seats and in to toddler or convertible seats, booster seats, 

and eventually seat belts. Thus, they have the potential to be passed on to other children. 

Previously used safety seats seldom come with a registration card, and are rarely 

registered by second and subsequent owners. There are alternative ways of registering a 

used seat, including using a form NHTSA provides or calling the manufacturer. 

Respondents were asked how long ago they had obtained the child seat, but not about its 

age if it was acquired used. Those who had used seats (defined as either bought used, 

borrowed, or received as a gift with no registration card) had themselves owned the seat 

an average (mean) of fifteen months. The median number of months a used seat was 

owned, however, was seven months. Nearly 70 percent of people with a used seat had 

acquired it in the past year. A relatively small number of used seat owners had acquired 

the seat several years before – 45 of 379 (slightly less than 12 percent) had received it 

more than three years earlier. 

60 
Recall that 85 percent of all seats determined to have been used previously for an older 

sibling had been obtained a year or more before the subject child was born. Even owners 

that have registered their child seats might be unaware of a recall if they no longer live at 

the same address. Again, the process exists to allow people to notify manufacturers with 

their change of address, although this is rarely done. While a letter from the 

manufacturer is the most reliable way for someone to learn about a recall, other methods 

are certainly needed to supplement this. Internet notices (including NHTSA’s web site), 

bulletins posted in stores, and magazine listings of recalls can provide permanent 

locations for people to research information. This could be especially useful when 

borrowing or being given a used child seat, or using one purchased over a year ago and/or 

while living at a different address. Television announcements, while not very reliable, 

are seen by many people, and are sometimes mentioned to the needed party by friends or 

family. E-mail notification offered by CPSC, as described in Section 3.2.1 offers an 

additional method for the consumer to stay informed about recalls. 

The most important factor is getting the message across that registration of child seats 

and recalling unsafe child safety seats are important. These messages have been 

successfully communicated to consumers. People are made aware of recalls in various 

ways, some more effective than others. For the most part, when consumers learn of a 

recall, they participate. Every seat that is repaired is a potential injury averted or life

saved. Therefore, every effort should be made to alert child seat owners when recalls 

occur. Registration cards are one method, and they have increased registration and recall 

compliance rates. Other methods can also be used to supplement this. 

61 
Chapter 3 Footnotes 

1. Kavalauskas, Juanita S. and. Kahane, Charles J, Evaluation of the American 

Automobile Labeling Act. NHTSA Report Number HS 809 208, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Washington, DC, January 2001. 

2. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Department of Commerce, June 2001. 

3. Money Income in the United States 1999. U.S. Census Bureau, Department of 

Commerce, September 2000. 

4. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Department of Commerce, May 2001. 

5. Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Buckle Up America Initiatives. DOT 

HS 809 272, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Washington, DC, May 2001. 

62 
Chapter 4: Impact on Recalls 

Consumers who have experienced a recall can provide valuable information on the topic. 

Their behavior and opinions can shed light on how the situation is perceived by those 

going through the process. Since a relatively small number of those in the General 

Consumer survey had experienced a recall, additional participants with recall experience 

were surveyed. The full survey instrument is presented in Appendix B. The data 

provided from the perspective of someone who has owned a recalled child seat is 

valuable for learning more about how consumers respond to recalls, as well as what 

factors tend to be associated with higher and lower rates of registration and recall 

compliance. 

4.1 Recall Audit 

The consumer survey discussed in the previous chapter queried whether consumers had 

previously been involved in a recall of a child safety seat. Of the 564 completed surveys, 

39 (less than seven percent) had, at some time, owned a child seat that had been recalled. 

In order to get a broader view of the experience people have when a seat is recalled, an

additional survey was conducted. Periodically, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation 

(ODI) in the Office of Safety Assurance conducts audits on recall campaigns, to ensure 

that manufacturers are properly complying with recall requirements. The list of child seat 

owners involved in the most recently completed (at that time) audit was made available 

for research purposes for this report. 

The specific recall campaign was selected for practicality only, in that the most recent 

occurrence would provide the freshest, best-recalled data from the consumers. It is not 

meant to be singled out in any way as either typical or atypical, but as descriptive of what 

a set of consumers experienced in a recall campaign. It should be noted here that all 

manufacturers producing child seats today have, at one time or another, experienced a 

recall. A list of all recalls, from January 1990 to the present, is available on NHTSA’s 

website at: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/recall/canister.htm

Specifics of the particular child seat involved, however, do have some bearing on the 

survey results. Therefore, relevant details of the recall and the seat itself are included for 

information purposes. The subject of this particular recall was a rear-facing infant seat 

that could also be used as a car bed, which is the recommended method of transporting 

premature infants born earlier than 37 weeks.1

 Very small infants often have problems 

breathing when sitting semi-reclined, and therefore would not be able to sit in a standard 

infant seat. While this car seat is not designed only for premature infants, it is one of a 

very small number of seats suitable for them. Thus, the experiences of owners of this 

child seat, and therefore the survey results, are influenced by the fact that the seat was for 

infants (rather than a toddler or convertible infant/toddler seat), in many cases a 

premature and/or low birthweight infant. In addition, the seats were originally purchased 

in 1994 and 1995. There are likely factors, such as the development of the internet, 

63 
which could influence the acquisition and registration of a child seat, that have changed 

over this time period. 

In January 1996, a recall notice was released for the child safety seat involved in the 

audit. The restraint, which was manufactured between April 1994 and June 1995, did not 

meet the maximum back angle requirement of FMVSS 213. In the event of a crash, 

infants in the seat would face an increased risk of injury. No information is provided 

regarding how great an increased risk this would be, but the fact that the child would be 

at a greater risk makes it of considerable importance. The manufacturer provided owners 

of the child restraint a free retrofit kit and installation instructions. The kit included a 

metal plate that hooked over the base of the seat and snapped in place by two plastic 

fasteners. The kit was described as “easy-to-install” and (as noted in section 4.3.7 below) 

consumers found that to be the case. 

NHTSA’s audit of this recall was in the form of a survey mailed in November 1998, to 

registered owners of the seats. The seats were manufactured about a year after FMVSS 

213 was amended, and therefore had the postage paid registration card. 

4.2 Recall Survey Background 

A survey was conducted based on a list of 646 names provided from the audit of the 

recalled child seat. Several of those on the list owned more than one of the seats, and 

some of those listed were organizations that owned several. Thus, the 646 names 

accounted for 1,008 of the seats sold. This particular recall campaign involved 15,370 

seats. The remaining owners had not returned the registration card, and therefore the 

manufacturer had no way of directly contacting them. 

The list contained the names and addresses of the owners of the seats. Since the survey 

for this report was conducted via telephone, contact phone numbers had to be obtained. 

From this list of 646 names, a reverse directory search was employed to identify 

telephone numbers for 236 consumers, 37 percent of the records in the original file. Of 

the remaining names, 359 were not listed (either the name provided was not listed at the 

address, or the address was not listed), 45 were unlisted phone numbers (although the 

name matched the address), 4 were not available (source not available to search 

military/foreign addresses), and 2 were blank or duplicate records. 

A pilot study was conducted between Monday, January 29 and Wednesday, January 31, 

2001, between the hours of 10:00 am and 5:00 p.m., EST, with a goal of ten completed 

interviews. The pilot study had several objectives. Primarily, since it had been more 

than five years since the recall occurred, there was concern that consumers might have 

difficulty remembering details of the experience. This turned out to not be the case. It 

was also desired to pretest the length of the survey as well as the clarity of the questions. 

As a result of this, some of the questions were reworded or their options altered. None of 

the respondents objected to the length of the survey, which ranged from 6 to 11 minutes. 

In total, 59 calls were made to 47 consumers. Specifically, 35 numbers were called once 

and 12 were attempted twice. Seven individuals and three organizations completed the 

surveys for the pilot test.

64 
The questionnaire itself was similar to the one used for the General survey, although 

tailored to consumers known to have both registered their child seat and been involved in 

a recall. Data for the full Recall survey were gathered by telephone. Interviews were 

conducted over a 12-day period, from March 29 through April 9, 2001. It was stated at 

the beginning of the interview that the call was in regard to the recall, and the consumer 

was asked if he/she remembered the recall. Only those that that stated they did remember 

the recall were included in the survey. Of those asked, only three people (of the total 236 

consumers) stated they did not remember the recall. 

Exhibit 4-1 presents the outcome of the telephone calls made to the 236 consumers for 

which contact information was obtained. 

Exhibit 4-1: Recall survey - Attempted Sample Records by Final Disposition 

Call Disposition Count Percent 

Completed interviews 73 30.9 

Completed pretest interviews 10 4.2 

Refusals 50 21.2

Other calls not producing data 103 43.6 

 Answering machine 14 5.9 

 No answer 5 2.1 

 Non-working number 13 5.5 

 Wrong number 18 7.6 

 Busy 8 3.4 

 Call back 36 14.5 

 Blocked call/privacy manager 4 1.6 

 Language problem 1 0.4 

 Fax/modem line 1 0.4 

 Consumer did not remember recall 3 1.2 

Total 236 100%

Remember that the General survey had a completion rate of 13.6 percent, which was 

considered quite good. The Recall survey, including the full and pretest completed 

interviews, had a completion rate of over 35 percent. It is important to note, however, 

that this was a self-selected group, having already sent in their registration card. In 

addition, these respondents had experienced the recall process, and therefore may have 

had more incentive to participate. Interestingly, the outright refusal rate for the Recall 

survey was 21.2, nearly twice the 11.6 percent rate found in the General survey. 

The results in this section will combine, wherever possible and appropriate, data from

respondents in the general consumer survey that experienced a recall with the data from 

the Recall survey, both the pretest and final survey, for a total of 122 consumers whose 

child seats had been recalled (73 in the Recall survey, 10 in the Recall pretest, and 39

from the General survey). Comparisons will be made between this group and consumers 

65 
in the General survey that did not experience a recall. The larger sample of seat owners 

involved in a recall will give a more stable basis of information for examination and 

comparison. In addition, information specific to the recall experience will be 

investigated.

4.3 Survey Results for Consumers Experiencing a Recall 

Survey results for those experiencing a recall are not weighted. For the Recall survey, no 

attempt was made to sample a representative group. Rather, as many seat owners as 

could be contacted were included. When consumers who participated in the General 

survey and experienced a recall are included, they will also not be weighted. 

Note that many of the respondents in the Recall survey and pretest that said it was 

because of a specific feature that they chose this particular seat likely were referring to 

the ability to be used as a car bed and/or transport low birthweight infants. Information 

on which specific feature to which respondents were referring was not gathered. No 

questions were asked about the seat itself or the age of the child using it, since the seats 

were designed for infants only. 

Bear in mind that the seat accommodating low birthweight infants may influence the 

method by which the owners acquired the seats. If many of the infants for whom these 

seats were bought were premature, the parents may not have had the chance to purchase a 

child seat before the birth of the child. This may explain why a larger proportion of seats 

was obtained as gifts and/or borrowed than in the general consumer survey. In fact, 

several of the registered owners were organizations that owned a number of the seats, and 

either loaned or gave them away. 

4.3.1 General Demographics of the Recall survey 

Again, wherever possible, data from the full Recall survey will be combined with data 

from the pretest as well as respondents to the General survey that had experienced a 

recall. These data will be labeled ‘Recall Occur’ in tables, to distinguish them from data 

from the Recall/Pretest surveys only. Since the Recall survey was related to seats 

manufactured in 1994 and 1995, the age of respondents to that survey would be expected 

to be somewhat higher than that of the General survey. This group of people purchased a 

seat for an infant approximately six years ago, compared with the General survey 

respondents, all currently having at least one child under two years of age. The age 

difference, however, was not statistically significant. More information on this, and other 

non-significant comparisons between those that experienced a recall and those that did 

not, is presented in Appendix C. 

The overwhelming majority of respondents was female – 92 percent of those for whom 

gender was recorded. Because of this, further breakdowns by gender will not be 

reported. 

As in the General survey, over 80 percent of respondents reported being married. A 

much larger percent, however, refused to answer this question – nearly ten percent in the 

Recall survey as compared to only 1.1 percent in the General survey. 

66 
Respondents in the Recall survey seem to have, on average, larger families than those in 

the General survey. Note that in the General survey, the majority reported having only 

one child under the age of 13, while only about sixteen percent reported having three or 

more children. For those involved in a recall, 41.1 percent reported three or more 

children. However, since those in the Recall survey were known to have had an infant 

about six years ago, this is possibly simply an artifact due to time passing since the seat 

was purchased. Data on number of children by recall status are presented in Exhibit 4-2. 

Exhibit 4-2: Number of Children Under Age 13 (Percent) 

Number of 

Children 

 Recall 

Occur 

General 

No Recall 

0 0.9 0.0

1 28.6 55.4

2 29.5 28.8

3 36.6 10.0

4 4.5 4.7

5 0.0 1.0

6 0.0 0.2

A logistic regression was run on the number of children, to determine whether family size 

for those respondents in the recall group was different than for those in the group not 

experiencing a recall. As for the previous significance tests, unweighted data were used. 

The resulting chi-square of 22.1692, with a probability of 0.0001, shows that there is a 

significant difference in the number of children for the two groups. Note that, since the 

majority of the respondents experiencing a recall did so several years ago, this does not 

imply that the seat in question was used by either an ‘only’ child or a ‘younger sibling.’ 

The number of the children given is current, and not reported for the time of the recall. 

As with the question on marital status, a larger percent of respondents chose not to 

identify their race in the Recall survey as compared to the General survey. There is even 

less diversity in the recall group than there had been in the General survey. The majority 

again are whites, and there were none of Hispanic descent. These data are shown in 

Exhibit 4-3. 

Exhibit 4-3: Race and Hispanic Background (Percent) 

Race/Hispanic Background Recall 

Occur 

General 

No Recall 

White (non-Hispanic) 82.8 79.4

Black/African American 3.3 4.8

Hispanic any race 3.3 9.9

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.8 0.0

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.6 2.7

Other race(s) 0.0 5.9

Refuse to answer 8.2 0.0

67 
A chi-square was run on race data, comparing those in the recall group to those never 

having a recall. Because of the small number of people of American Indian/Alaskan and 

Asian/Pacific Islander respondents, these groups were combined with ‘Other races’ for 

this analysis. The chi-square value of 7.611, with 3 degrees of freedom, was nearly 

significant, with a probability of 0.055. There was a higher proportion of Whites in the 

recall group, compared to a higher proportion of minorities (Black/African Americans, 

Hispanic, and Other Races) in the non-recall group. 

A much higher proportion of those in the Recall survey had an associate or B.A. degree 

than did those in the General survey. A larger percentage of those in the General survey, 

however, received an advanced degree than did those in the Recall survey. Exhibit 4-4 

presents educational level data by recall status. 

Exhibit 4-4: Education Level of Respondents (Percent) 

Education Level General 

No Recall 

Recall 

Occur 

High school grad or less 9.8 21.5

Some college 11.6 20.8

Associate/B.A. degree 67.9 37.3

Advanced degree 4.5 18.9

Refuse to answer 6.3 1.5

A logistic regression run on the years of education (as determined as noted in Section 

3.2.3) by recall experience was significant, with a chi-square of 4.7060 and a probability 

of 0.0301, with those in the recall group having more education. The mean number of 

years of education did not differ greatly, 14.7 years for those not involved in a recall as 

compared to 15.3 years for those that were. However, the variance for each of the two 

groups was very dissimilar. The standard deviation for the recall group was 1.8, while 

for those not having a recall it was 2.4. There was much greater variation in years of 

education for those not experiencing a recall. In addition, the number of years having 

passed since the recall of seats involved in the audit may have had some effect on the 

education of the Recall group. 

4.3.2 Reasons for Registering Child Seats 

Respondents to the Recall survey were asked about their reasons for registering their 

child seats. Since all respondents had experienced a recall after registering the seat, it is 

possible that it could influence their subsequent answers to the survey questions. A chisquare run on the data was non-significant. Further information is presented in Appendix 

C. Overall, those involved in a recall chose to register their seats for the same reasons as 

did those not experiencing one. This certainly is reasonable, since at the time the card is 

sent, the consumer would not be aware of a recall occurring sometime in the future. 

4.3.3 Acquisition of a Child Restraint 

Differences in the relative timing of the surveys prevented an exact mirroring of the 

General survey by the Recall survey and pretest. Since the recall itself had taken place 

68 
about six years earlier, asking participants to remember when they had obtained the child 

seat would likely not have provided accurate data. In addition, since the seat was not 

currently in use, there is nothing similar to the breakdown provided in Exhibit 3-22, 

noting whether the seat was acquired for ‘this child’ or an older sibling. Furthermore, it 

was known that all seats in the Recall survey came with cards, so respondents were not 

asked about its presence. Consequently, no new/used breakdown is possible for seats 

received as gifts. Within these limitations, however, data are available on how the 

recalled child seat had been obtained, as shown in Exhibit 4-5. 

Exhibit 4-5: How Child Restraint was Acquired (Percent) 

How Seat was Acquired Recall 

Occur 

General 

No Recall 

Purchased 

 New 42.6 59.6

 Used 1.6 3.4

Received as gift 53.3 32.6

Borrowed from friend/relative 1.6 2.5

Loaner program 0.0 0.4

Other 0.0 1.1

No answer 0.8 0.4

A chi-square run on these data was significant at the 0.011 level (chi-square value of 

14.794 with 5 degrees of freedom, omitting those not answering the question). The 

majority of those in the General survey had purchased their child seat (a total of 63 

percent, 59.6 percent new and an additional 3.4 percent used), with most of the remaining 

consumers (32.6%) receiving it as a gift. This is reversed for those having had a recall, 

with the majority of the respondents having received the seat as a gift. Keep in mind that 

the subject seat of the recall audit was a seat especially for premature and/or low 

birthweight infants. With a premature birth, the parent(s) may not have completed all 

expected preparations before the birth, and the seat may have then been purchased by 

someone else. In addition, very few of the seats were purchased used, and none were 

borrowed from a loaner program. Overall, the majority of those that experienced a recall 

received their seat as a gift, while most of those that did not have a recall purchased their 

seat new. 

Most of those that purchased their child seat and later had a recall obtained it from a store 

(74.5%). Another 7.3% purchased it from via mail order. A chi-square run on the type 

of store at which the child seat was purchased was non-significant; the data are presented 

in Appendix C. None of those experiencing a recall borrowed a seat from a loaner 

program, and only two people borrowed the seat from a friend or relative. 

Those that bought their child seat were asked what the most important reason was in 

selecting the seat that they purchased. Like those in the General survey, the majority of

respondents that had experienced a recall chose their seat because of the features of the 

seat itself, rather than a person’s or organization’s recommendation. 

69 
Participants that experienced a recall were asked who, if anyone, had provided them with 

information regarding registration when they obtained their child safety seat. Overall,

about 16 percent of these respondents said that someone had spoken to them. As was 

seen in the General survey (Exhibit 3-27) discussing registration with someone seems to 

increase the likelihood of registering the seat. 

4.3.4 Importance of Registering and Recalling Child Safety Seats 

All participants in the Recall survey and pretest had experienced a recall, which could 

conceivably influence their feelings on the importance of registering and recalling child 

seats. Exhibit 4-6 shows the importance consumers place on registering a child safety 

seat. Data from those in the General Survey that did not experience a recall are included 

here for comparison. More than 84% of respondents who had experienced a recall 

replied that it was extremely important to register child seats, compared to less than 40% 

of those in the General survey that did not experience one. While it was stated earlier 

that there was agreement by most consumers that registering child seats is at least very

important, more than 21% of respondents rated it less important than that. Only about 

four percent of those that had experienced a recall thought it was ‘Fairly’ or ‘Somewhat’ 

important. None believed it to be ‘Not at all important.’ Again, the fact that several 

years have passed, and that respondents in the Recall survey are generally older at the 

time of the survey, may be have some bearing on the data. 

Exhibit 4-6: Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats, by Survey (Percent) 

Recall 

Occur 

General 

No Recall 

Extremely important 84.4 37.1

Very important 11.5 40.6

Fairly important 1.6 8.8

Somewhat important 2.5 8.0

Not at all important 0.0 3.6

No opinion 0.0 1.9

A logistic regression was run on those consumers with an opinion of the importance of 

registering child safety seats. The chi-square of 46.7327 was significant at the 0.0001 

level, confirming that those who have experienced a recall see greater importance in 

registering seats than those who have not. 

Similarly, Exhibit 4-7 shows the importance respondents placed on recalling unsafe child 

seats, for both those in the Recall survey and those in the General survey that experienced 

a recall. Weighted data from the full General survey separated by whether or not the card 

was returned (shown earlier in Exhibit 3-31) are also presented for comparison. Of the 

122 consumers experiencing a recall, only twelve people did not feel it was extremely 

important to recall unsafe child seats.

70 
Exhibit 4-7: Importance of Recalling Unsafe Child Safety Seats, 

by Survey (Percent) 

Recall 

Occur 

General 

No 

Recall 

Returned 

Card 

(General) 

Did not 

Return Card 

(General) 

Extremely important 90.2 62.1 70.2 54.6

Very important 9.0 36.2 29.1 40.3

Fairly important 0.8 1.0 0.0 3.6

Somewhat important 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0

Not at all important 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

No opinion 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.5

Logistic regression on these data, with a chi-square of 46.0805, was significant at the 

0.0001 level. As with registering seats, the experience of a recall seems to influence 

consumers’ opinions on the importance of recalling unsafe child seats. In both cases, 

while there is a large proportion of people stating they believe it is at least very 

important, experiencing a recall appears to intensify this importance for many. 

Since the overwhelming majority of those in the Recall survey felt that both registering 

and recalling child seats are extremely important, further examination of the data by 

demographic variables would not be useful. Given the small number of participants that 

did not feel registration or recalling unsafe seats was very important, it would be 

unproductive to further break down the data by age group, education level, etc. 

4.3.5 Perceived Best Methods of Recall Notification

Exhibit 4-8 presents information on which method respondents felt would be most 

effective to inform people of a recall. Weighted data, from the General survey by 

whether or not the respondent had stated returning the registration card (shown 

previously in Exhibit 3-33) are presented for comparison. 

Exhibit 4-8: Most Effective Method of Informing Consumers of Recalls of Child 

Safety Seats, by Survey (Percent) 

Method of Informing Recall 

Occur 

General 

No Recall 

Returned 

Card 

(General) 

Did not 

Return Card 

(General) 

Letter from the manufacturer 36.9 57.5 71.9 34.7

Television announcement 54.9 24.4 11.0 40.3

Notice posted in retail store 0.0 3.4 0.2 11.2

Newspaper/magazine announcement 0.8 2.1 0.5 2.0

Announcement on the internet 0.0 1.7 0.9 2.0

All of the above 6.6 9.7 14.8 8.3

Notice posted in pediatrician’s office 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0

Other 0.8 0.6 0.3 1.5

71 
Surprisingly, the responses from those experiencing a recall were more similar to the

General survey participants that did not register their child seats. In both groups, the 

majority believed that a television announcement was the most effective method, while 

about one-third of those consumers felt a letter from the manufacturer was best. This is 

in sharp contrast to those in the General survey that registered their seat, where 71.9% 

believed a letter from the manufacturer was the most effective method, and only 11.0% 

chose a television announcement. 

Note that, while all participants in the Recall survey and pretest are known to have 

registered their child seat, this is not true for all those experiencing a recall in the General 

survey. Of the 39 respondents in the General survey that had a recall, about 60 percent 

(23 of the 39) stated they had mailed in the registration card. However, even looking 

only at those in the Recall survey and pretest, for whom it is known that a letter was 

received from the manufacturer, only 35 percent believe a letter from the manufacturer is 

the best method to inform consumers of a recall. Nearly 64% of these consumers feel 

that a televised announcement is the most effective method. 

4.3.6 Actual Method of Recall Notification 

Those involved in a recall were asked how they first found out about the recall. The 

results for consumers who stated they returned the registration card are shown in Exhibit 

4-9. In addition to the choices listed in the table, consumers were also given ‘Radio 

announcement’ and ‘Announcement on the internet’ as options, but none of those who 

had registered selected either one. 

It is important to note that the majority of these respondents (83 of 106 who had 

registered) participated in the ODI audit. Of those in the recall survey, 88 percent first 

found out via written notification from the manufacturer. Interestingly, only 21.7 percent 

of those in the General survey that registered said they first found out through a written 

notification. The largest group, about 30.4 percent, said they first found out about the 

recall through a televised announcement. An additional 21.7 percent heard from a friend 

or relative, as many as first found out from the manufacturer. 

Exhibit 4-9: How Registered Owners First Found out About Recall, 

by Survey (Percent) 

How Informed Recall 

Survey 

General 

Survey 

All Registered 

& Recalled 

Written notification from manufacturer 88.0 21.7 73.6

Television announcement 2.4 30.4 8.5

Newspaper/magazine announcement 2.4 8.7 3.8

Notice posted in retail store 1.2 4.3 1.9

Friend/relative 3.6 21.7 7.5

Other 0.0 8.7 1.9

Don’t remember/refused to answer 2.4 4.3 2.8

72 
Exhibit 4-10 shows how those that did not register their child seat first found out about 

the recall. Note that, while none of those that had registered learned of the recall via the 

internet, none of those that did not register saw a notice on a store bulletin board. Also, 

equal proportions found out through a televised announcement, newspaper or magazine 

announcement, and from friends or relatives. Keep in mind, however, that the number of 

consumers in the General survey that did not register and knew their seat had been 

recalled was small, only sixteen people. 

Exhibit 4-10: How Non-registered Owners First Found out About Recall (Percent) 

How Informed General 

Survey 

Television announcement 25.0 

Newspaper/magazine announcement 25.0 

Announcement on internet 6.3 

Friend/relative 25.0 

Other 12.5 

Don’t remember/refused to answer 6.3 

The consumers contacted for the Recall survey were known to have registered their seats, 

and therefore are not a random group of child seat owners. Looking at only those 

respondents in the General survey that knew their seat had been recalled offers a more 

accurate picture of how a typical consumer might first learn about the recall of a child 

seat. Exhibit 4-11 presents data on how those in the General survey first learned of the 

recall, regardless of whether the seat was registered or not. Overall, the largest group of 

people first learned of the recall from a television announcement, followed by hearing the 

information from a friend or relative. Slightly more people first learned of it by reading 

about it in a newspaper or magazine than receiving notification from the manufacturer. 

Exhibit 4-11: How All Consumers in General Survey 

First Found out About Recall (Percent) 

How Informed General 

Survey 

Written notification from manufacturer 12.8 

Television announcement 28.2 

Newspaper/magazine announcement 15.4 

Announcement on Internet 2.6 

Notice posted in retail store 2.6 

Friend/relative 23.1 

Other 10.3 

Don’t remember/refused to answer 5.1 

Regardless of how they first found out, 67.2 percent of consumers involved in a recall 

remembered being informed of the recall by a written notice from the manufacturer. An 

additional 9.0 percent could not recall whether the manufacturer had contacted them or 

73 
not, leaving 23.8 percent stating that they had not been contacted by the manufacturer. 

Note that not all those experiencing a recall registered their seat with the manufacturer. 

In such a case, there would be no way to contact the consumer. Looking only at those 

that were known to have registered their seat, 77.4 percent stated that they remembered 

receiving a written notice from the manufacturer. Again, more than two-thirds of 

consumers in these surveys were part of the ODI audit and known to have registered their 

seats, thus heavily influence the percentage. Looking only at those in the general survey 

that registered their seats, 56.5 percent stated that they remembered receiving a letter 

from the manufacturer. 

4.3.7 The Recall Experience 

Consumers that experienced a recall were asked whether the manufacturer provided them

with instructions (either written or verbal) regarding what to do with the recalled child 

seat until it was repaired or replaced. The majority, 70.2%, said they did receive such

instructions. A relatively large group, 22.3%, said they did not receive any instructions, 

while 7.4% said they could not remember whether they had been told or not. Of those 

that did recall receiving such instructions, 90.7% reported that the instructions were 

extremely clear. An additional 5.8% said they were fairly clear instructions, while only 

3.5% felt the instructions were not clear at all. 

When asked whether the recalled child seat had been repaired or replaced, 84.2% of 

consumers answering the question said it had been. Only two respondents refused to 

answer the question. Those that did not have the seat fixed were asked why, for which 

multiple responses were collected. Only three respondents chose to give two responses 

(none gave more), but there was still a wide variety of responses. The largest group, 

seven of the nineteen that did not fix their seats, no longer used or owned the seat at the 

time of the recall. Three did not understand what they were to do, and two reported being 

too busy and just not getting around to it. Respondents were permitted to provide an 

answer if it was felt that the choices given did not reflect their reason. Using this option, 

individual respondents also reported the following reasons: Lost recall information or 

parts; Didn’t feel the defect would cause an injury; Would only be using the seat for one 

additional month and did not use handle; Had just bought the seat so returned it to the 

store; Threw the seat away; Didn’t meet the criteria for the recall; Manufacturer did not 

provide parts, refund, or new seat; Unable to reach manufacturer; and Baby was due and 

they wanted everything ready. It is not known whether this last respondent decided to 

purchase a new seat and/or return or dispose of the recalled seat. The only other 

comment this respondent provided is that s/he did not know what do to. One additional 

respondent chose not to say why the seat was not repaired. 

The respondent stating that the manufacturer did not provide the parts had originally 

called to purchase a replacement pad and was told at that time the seat had been recalled. 

He was told the part would be mailed to him, but had not yet received it. The recall 

occurred during the year 2000, while the survey took place in January 2001. It is not 

known how long the person had been waiting. The consumer stating she was unable to 

reach the manufacturer said she just didn’t know how to contact them. 

74 
Those consumers that were provided replacement parts or a retrofit kit to repair their seat 

were asked how easy or difficult it was to fix the seat. Eighty-two percent stated that it 

was extremely easy to do, while only one person stated it was difficult. This person 

reported it was difficult to reach the parts. When asked about clarity of the instructions

the manufacturer provided to fix the seat, 86.5% said they were extremely easy to 

understand. Only one person found them difficult to understand. 

Even though more than two-thirds of these respondents (83 of the 122) were from a 

single recall incident and therefore had the same repair requirement, it does seem that 

overall, the instructions were easy to understand and follow, and the actual seat repairs 

were easy to perform. In addition, for those consumers that chose to comply with the 

recall, the majority stated that it was not difficult to contact the manufacturer. Once 

consumers know about a recall, most do comply. For those that are aware and choose not 

to comply, there is usually a suitable reason for not doing so that did not expose their 

child to riding in an unsafe child seat. 

75 
Chapter 4 Footnotes 

1. Tip #3: How to protect your new baby in the car. Child Transportation Safety 

Tips, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/newtips/tip3.html. 

76 
Chapter 5: The Role of Dealers in Child Seat Registration 

The primary objective of the revised FMVSS 213 was to increase the proportion of child 

seats repaired when a recall occurs. The method for accomplishing this was to require 

registration cards with new child seats, providing a means for manufacturers to contact 

consumers directly should the need arise. There are, however, intermediaries between

the manufacturer and consumer who may be able to influence whether consumers register 

child safety seats and/or respond to recalls. As demonstrated by the consumer survey

(Section 3.2.7), consumers are more likely to register their child seats if they receive 

information about the registration process when they acquire their seat. A survey of child 

safety seat dealers was performed to examine whether, why, and how retailers encourage 

consumers to register their child seats. 

5.1 Dealer Survey Background 

The survey was conducted between March 8 and May 17, 2000. A pilot test was 

conducted to test the questionnaire and data collection procedures. As a result of this, 

enhancements were made to the procedures for notifying dealers about the survey and 

recruiting respondents. 

To ensure geographic diversity, various types of stores were recruited and surveyed in 

each of the four census regions (northeast, midwest, south, and west). Exhibit 5-1 shows 

the states included in each region. 

Exhibit 5-1: States within each Census Region 

West Midwest South Northeast

Alaska Illinois Alabama Maine

Arizona Indiana Arkansas New Hampshire

California Iowa Florida Vermont

Colorado Kansas Georgia Massachusetts

Hawaii Michigan Kentucky Rhode Island

Idaho Minnesota Louisiana New York

Montana Missouri Mississippi Connecticut

Nevada Nebraska North Carolina New Jersey 

New Mexico Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania 

North Dakota Wisconsin South Carolina Delaware 

Oregon Tennessee Maryland

South Dakota Texas West Virginia 

Utah Virginia

Washington District of Columbia 

Wyoming

77 
A cross section of types of stores was sampled to get a varied representation. The four 

store types were defined as follows: 

• Department – Large national chain stores that sell a range of products, such as 

Sears and Montgomery Wards. 

• Boutique – Small, independently owned stores selling baby products. For this 

classification‚ boutiques with no more than three stores were included. 

• Specialty – Typically large national chain stores that sell one type of product, 

such as Toys a Us. Also included in this category were boutique stores with 

more than three stores. 

• Discount – Large, national chain stores that sell a wide range of products at 

discount prices, such as Target, Wal-Mart, and K-Mart. 

The survey sample was identified through a multi-step process. First, candidate stores

were located through general knowledge and via internet searches. A number of stores 

were obvious potential candidates for the study‚ such as Sears, Toys a Us, and large 

national department store chains. Other, less well-known stores were located through 

internet searches. Many of these stores were located through baby furniture association 

web sites that have member stores all over the country. After candidate stores were 

located‚ a determination was made (via the store’s web page or through a telephone call) 

as to whether or not the store sold child safety seats. 

The final step consisted of identifying prospective survey respondents. Two methods 

were used to recruit stores for participation in the study: telephone calls and direct 

mailing of the survey to stores. In some instances, prospective survey respondents were 

identified through telephone calls made to the store manager or employees in the 

department selling child safety seats. After the study was explained to the employee, s/he 

was asked if their store would be interested in participating, and if so‚ to whom should 

the survey be sent. In other instances, surveys were sent directly to store managers, 

without an initial telephone call to identify a specific point-of-contact. Store addresses 

were obtained through the internet. 

Exhibit 5-2: Region of Contacted and Participating Child Safety Seat Dealers 

Contact Participate

West 34 15

Midwest 22 12

South 37 12

East 28 15

Total 120 54

78 
These procedures, implemented on an ongoing basis throughout the survey 

administration, produced a pool of 120 stores used as candidates for inclusion in the 

study. Fifty-four surveys were ultimately returned. Exhibit 5-2 shows the number of 

stores in each region of the country that were contacted and that returned the survey. 

Exhibit 5-3 presents the number of each type of store contacted, and the number 

eventually participating in the final survey. 

Exhibit 5-3: Type of Contacted and Participating Child Safety Seat Dealers 

Contact Participate

Discount 44 19

Specialty 25 13

Boutique 26 16

Department 25 6

Total 120 54

5.2 Dealer Survey Results 

The survey, a nationwide sample of 54 retailers that sell child safety seats, examined their 

participation in and knowledge of the child safety seat registration and recall process, 

including whether (and how) dealers promote consumer registration of child seats and 

participation in recalls. The sample is made up of data from all regions of the United 

States and various types of stores that sell child seats, but is not necessarily nationally 

representative. It does, however, offer a picture of how dealers enter into the registration 

and recall process for many consumers. The dealer survey was conducted primarily for 

anecdotal information. Thus, the data were treated as a random sample and no weighting 

was applied. 

5.2.1 Dealer Information 

The majority of the respondents queried (51.9 percent) stated their job title was 

department manager, while 18.5 percent were store managers and 20.4 percent the 

president/owner of the store. Sales associate and buyer were each noted once (1.9 

percent) as job titles, and 5.5 percent did not state a job title. 

Ages of the respondents range from 23 to 61, with a median age of 37 years. The time

they stated having been employed at the store ranged from one to 26 years, with a median 

of six years. When asked how long they had worked in the same department, their 

responses again ranged from one to 26 years, but with a median of three years. 

The large majority of respondents in this survey were higher level and/or supervisory 

employees. For the most part, they had a fair amount of experience at both the store and 

the specific department in which they were employed. They were overall likely to be 

quite knowledgeable about store policy and activities regarding child seat recalls. 

79 
To get a better portrayal of the stores, dealers were asked how many child seats were 

typically sold per month. Responses ranged from three to 800. About half sold 45 or 

fewer seats in a month, with another 25 percent selling 50 or 60 monthly. About eighteen 

percent sold over one hundred seats per month. Each type of store reported, in at least 

one instance, selling at least one hundred seats monthly. 

Dealers were also asked about the number of different kinds of child safety seats they 

typically kept in stock. About seven percent sold three or fewer types, eleven percent 

offered four to six, 24 percent had seven to ten, and one-third stocked eleven to fifteen 

types. Twenty-four percent of the respondents said that they normally had more than 

fifteen types of seats available in stock. Specialty stores were most likely to report 

offering more than fifteen types of seats, and boutique stores more frequently offered 

three or fewer types. Stores in the midwest most often reported having the largest 

selection. 

5.2.2 The Dealer Viewpoint on Registration 

Respondents were asked how familiar they felt they were with the requirements for 

registering child safety seats. About thirty percent said they were ‘Not at all familiar’ 

while another thirty percent said they were ‘very familiar.’ Ten to fifteen percent 

selected each of the three options in between. Boutique and specialty stores were more 

likely to report being very familiar with the requirements, while department stores did not 

feel they knew much about the requirements. Dealers in the midwest expressed the most 

familiarity with the requirements, while those in the south reported knowing the least 

about them. 

When asked how important they thought it was to register child seats, nearly seventy 

percent said it was very important. Discount stores placed less importance on registration 

than did the other types of stores. Stores in the east and midwest were less likely than the 

other regions to feel that registration was ‘Very important.’ 

Dealers were asked whether child seat manufacturers took steps to encourage store 

employees to increase registration. Only three respondents (less than six percent) said 

they did. These three came from three different store types and three different regions. 

All three mentioned the registration card itself, either its presence or the information it 

provides. Two of the responses simply noted the cards, and it is not clear whether it was 

meant that the card itself was the encouragement or whether manufacturers went out of 

their way to mention it to store employees. The third dealer said he was encouraged to 

inform the customer that they needed to mail in the registration card in order to be 

notified of recalls by the manufacturer. 

Dealers were also asked whether any groups encouraged store employees to work to 

increase child seat registration. While only 5.6 percent of those surveyed said this 

occurred, all three stores were in the west. One store employee stated that the 

Washington State Safety Restraint Coalition had provided car seat safety certification, 

and that he now trains store employees. Another stated that all employees encouraged 

80 
this, with the goal that a customer well served would return to the store for future 

purchases. The final group mentioned was a store safety committee. 

5.2.3 Registration Information Dealers Provide to the Consumer 

Dealers were asked whether they typically provided information to customers about how 

child seats are registered. Fifty-four percent said they did provide information – 19 

percent stated they provided only general information about registration, and 35 percent 

reported they also provide information about the registration form. Stores in the midwest 

provided information most frequently, 75 percent of the time. Only one-third of the 

stores located in the east provided information on registration. Discount stores were the 

least likely to offer information, doing so only 42 percent of the time, while 69 percent of 

specialty stores stated they offered information. 

When asked if their store provided information on why (rather than how) child seats 

should be registered, 43 percent of the stores stated they did. Only 20 percent of stores in 

the east provided this information, while two-thirds of the stores in the midwest did so. 

Specialty and boutique stores gave this type of information about seventy percent of the 

time, while department stores did so only fifteen percent of the time, and discount stores 

only ten. 

Overall, 46 percent of dealers stated that they encouraged customers to register the seats 

they purchased. Two-thirds of the stores in both the west and midwest did so, as did 75 

percent of boutique stores. Only one in five stores in the east encouraged registration, as 

did about a third of stores in the south. Stores that did encourage consumers to register 

were then asked what percentage of those customers said they would register the child 

seat. Forty-four percent of dealers stated that more than 75 percent of their customers 

said they would register the seat. Department stores were the least likely to report that

more than three-fourths of customers would register seats. 

5.2.4 Dealers and Recall Information 

Dealers were asked how their store finds out about child safety seat recalls. The percent 

of respondents selecting each response is presented in Exhibit 5-4. Respondents were 

permitted to select multiple answers, so the total sums to more than 100. 

Exhibit 5-4: Methods by which Dealers Learn about Child Seat Recalls 

Method Percent

Letter from the manufacturer 75.9 

Television announcement 37.0 

Notified by store management/headquarters 55.6 

Read in magazine/newspaper 20.4 

Saw on internet 7.4 

Notified by consumer group 14.8 

Other 7.4 

81 
Other methods through which dealers became aware of recalls were customers, their 

distributor, a buying group, and e-mail. The source of this ‘other’ e-mail was not stated, 

but several other dealers mentioned e-mail communications from company headquarters, 

which were included in the group ‘Notified by store management/headquarters.’ 

Dealers were also asked what they felt were the most effective methods for stores to find 

out about child seat recalls. Results are presented in Exhibit 5-5, and again, multiple 

responses were allowed. 

Exhibit 5-5: Methods Dealers feel are Most Effective to Learn about 

Child Seat Recalls 

Method Percent

Letter from the manufacturer 85.2 

Television announcement 14.8 

Notified by store management/headquarters 46.3 

Read in magazine/newspaper 9.3 

Saw on internet 5.6 

Notified by consumer group 25.9 

Other 7.4 

The overwhelming majority felt that a letter from the manufacturer is the most effective 

method for stores to learn about child seat recalls. This coincides with data from the 

previous table, stating that this is, indeed, how most stores find out. Similarly, about half 

felt that being notified by store management and/or headquarters was effective, which 

was close to the percent noting they learned of recalls that way. While more than a third 

of the dealers said that they learned of child seat recalls via television announcements, 

only a small percentage thought this was an effective method. Methods mentioned by 

dealers selecting “other” were e-mail from the manufacturer and getting information from

the buyer. 

The majority of dealers (81.5 percent) said they informed customers about child seat 

recalls. Every store surveyed in the midwest reported notifying consumers about recalls. 

The lowest percentage was in the south, where only two-thirds of the stores provided 

recall notifications. Likewise, all of the department stores that were asked said that they 

did inform customers about recalls, while only 61.5 percent of child specialty stores did 

so. 

Respondents were asked in what ways they informed customers about recalls. Posting 

signs in the stores was the most frequent method employed. Overall, 86.8 percent of 

dealers that stated they informed consumers of recalls did so by posting signs, most 

frequently at the front of the store or near the child seat stock. Discount stores were the 

only type of store to report posting notices in both locations. In fact, the majority of 

discount stores that notify customers about recalls posted in both locations, which would 

be especially helpful in this type of store because of the size. One department store 

mentioned placing an ad in a newspaper along with posting signs. A few stores, most 

82 
frequently boutiques, said they informed the consumer directly, either phoning if they had 

a record of the sale or by recognizing them on a return visit. This type of personalized 

service would be very difficult to offer in the larger types of store. The small boutiques 

usually often posted notices as well. 

Dealers were then asked what methods they felt were most effective for consumers to 

learn about recalls. Data are presented in Exhibit 5-6. Multiple responses were allowed. 

Exhibit 5-6: Methods Dealers feel are Most Effective for Consumers to Learn about 

Child Seat Recalls 

Method Percent

Letter from the manufacturer 81.5 

Television announcement 68.5 

Dealer announcement 20.4 

Read in magazine/newspaper 38.9 

See on internet 20.4 

Notify by consumer group 14.8 

Hear from friend or relative 3.7 

Other 1.9 

Not surprisingly, a letter from the manufacturer was felt to be effective by a large number 

of respondents. However, television announcements were also thought to be quite 

effective for consumers, although these same dealers did not think this an effective 

method by which they, the dealers, would find out about a recall. 

Similarly, reading about a recall in a newspaper or magazine, or on the internet, were 

thought by dealers to be effective for consumers but not for themselves. Only about one 

in five dealers thought a dealer announcement was an effective method. In actuality, 

none of these methods was noted by a large number of consumer respondents stating how 

they had first learned of the recall (Exhibit 4-11). A very small number of dealers 

thought that a consumer hearing about a recall from a friend or relative was an effective 

method, although a number of consumers reported first learning of it this way. 

5.2.5 Dealer Experience with Recalls of Seats still in Stock 

When a recall occurs, the manufacturer must instruct dealers on what to do with seats 

currently in stock. Two dealers, both child specialty stores, did not report ever having 

had a child seat in their store recalled. The remaining dealers were asked how clear such 

instructions typically were. Thirty-eight percent felt the instructions were extremely 

clear, and another 35 felt they were very clear. Nineteen percent considered them fairly 

clear, while “somewhat clear” and “not at all clear” were each reported by four percent of 

the dealers. 

Boutiques were the only type of store to indicate that the instructions were “not at all 

clear,” while discount stores were the most likely to feel instructions were at least “very 

clear.” Moreover, the majority of discount stores (53%) said instructions were 

83 
“extremely clear.” No store in the east or midwest felt manufacturer’s instructions were 

“not at all clear,” and midwestern stores were the most likely to feel instructions were at 

least “very clear.”

Those dealers experiencing a recall in the past were then asked how the recall was 

resolved. Choices offered, and the percent each one was selected, are presented in 

Exhibit 5-7. Respondents were permitted to select multiple responses, so they sum to 

more than 100 percent. 

Exhibit 5-7: Dealers – How recall of Child Seat was Resolved 

How Resolved Percent 

Manufacturer replaced them 53.8 

Manufacturer sent parts 46.2 

Manufacturer fixed them 24.4 

Manufacturer credited store 65.4 

Manufacturer had customer call 5.8 

Seats were not fixed or replaced 0.0 

Other 1.9 

Respondents were given a choice of options for this question, including “other,” for 

which they would then specify additional information. Three dealers said that the 

manufacturer provided a telephone number for the customer to call. The question 

referred to child seats that were unsold when recalled, but it is possible that the 

respondent misunderstood the question. They may have mistakenly answered regarding 

recall response after the seat had been sold, rather than while it was still in stock. 

Another dealer specifying “other” said that the method to resolved recalls varied, but did 

not identify any specific ways. The most common method of resolving child seat recalls, 

at the dealer level, was the manufacturer crediting the store. This was followed by the 

manufacturer replacing the seats, and then by sending parts for the dealer to perform the 

repair. 

Those dealers that were sent parts to repair seats were asked how easy it was to 

understand the directions. Two-thirds of the dealers reported that the instructions were 

either “very” or “extremely easy” to understand. Only one dealer, a discount store, felt 

instructions were “not at all easy” to understand. The dealers were also asked how easy it 

was to actually fix the seats in question. About half felt it was at least “very easy” to 

repair the seats, and none reported that it was “not at all easy.”

5.3 Conclusions 

The stores participating in this survey were not a nationally representative sample. An 

attempt was made to represent the four types of stores identified, and the four U.S. census 

regions. Beyond that, however, no claim is made regarding their representation. Stores 

were contacted that declined to participate, and their inclusion may have influenced the 

outcome. However, the participating stores do sell child safety seats, and the majority 

84 
have experienced recalls of such seats. Generalizations refer only to the stores included 

in the survey, although of course similar tendencies may apply to other stores of the same

type and/or in the same region of the country. 

Boutique stores, because of their small size, do not offer as broad a selection of seats as 

their larger competitors. What they can offer, however, is greater familiarity with their 

customers. These stores were the most likely to recognize customers and personally 

speak to them about a recall. These stores were also among the most familiar with 

registration requirements. 

Child specialty stores were also familiar with these requirements, and the most likely to 

provide information on registration. They also had the largest selection of child seats. 

However, they were the least likely to report notifying customers about recalls. 

Stores in the midwest reported the largest selection of seats. They also tended to be 

familiar with registration requirements and encouraged customers to register their seats. 

Midwestern stores also reported high rates of providing registration and recall 

information. 

Dealers most often became aware of recalls through a letter from the manufacturer and/or 

by being notified by store management or headquarters. The larger groups of stores often 

mentioned e-mail alerts from headquarters, a fast and efficient way to get information out 

to individual stores. This seems to be working well. 

When a recall does occur, dealers rarely find the manufacturer’s instructions on how to 

proceed difficult to understand. In cases where the dealer was to perform the repair, both 

the instructions and performing the repair were not difficult. 

Dealers seem reasonably knowledgeable about the registration and recall processes. 

They currently receive little encouragement from either child seat manufacturers or other 

groups to promote registration to their customers. Since a consumer is more likely to 

register his or her child seat if registration is mentioned at the time the seat is acquired, 

such encouragement could be very beneficial to the process. Even so, at present, the 

majority of dealers stated that they do provide information to customers about 

registration. A very low percent of consumers in the General survey recalled speaking to 

anyone at a store when the seat was purchased. However, information may have been 

provided in other ways, such as signs posted near the seats or brochures available at the 

checkout. 

Dealers should be encouraged to continue providing information and advocate 

registration. Both public and private safety groups should do more to encourage dealers 

in this respect. The point of purchase provides an excellent opportunity to reach a large 

number of child seat owners to encourage registration. As seen in the General 

(Consumer) Survey, this can make a difference in whether a person registers or not. 

Sponsoring a program in which dealers mention registration and/or provide a brochure 

with registration information to give to purchasers at the time of the sale could provide a 

85 
substantial increase in child seat registration. The addition of posters to the child seat 

section of the store would create an even more complete program. Local grassroots 

organizations could work with local retailers, both small boutiques and larger stores, to 

emphasize child seat registration. Regional and nationwide organizations could introduce 

programs on a larger level, working with discount, department, and child specialty stores 

with multiple locations. NHTSA could sponsor and support some of these programs. 

In addition, dealer personnel should do more to encourage consumers to register their 

child seats. There already exists a successful means of communication throughout stores 

with multiple locations. Much of this is instantaneous, via e-mail. Reminders, including 

graphical items such as signs to post, could easily be sent to individual stores from

headquarters. If management places importance on child seat registration, employees 

will follow. An added benefit for the store is good public relations, being seen as a 

company that cares about children beyond the sale. This would then result in a greater 

number of child seat owners to be aware of recalls, which in turn results in greater child 

safety. 

Dealers clearly play an important intermediary role between the child seat manufacturers 

and consumers. Communicating information regarding registration can substantially 

increase the registration rate. Retailers also serve as an information point in the event of 

a recall. Typically, parents of young children return to the place at which they purchased 

their child seat, regardless of the type of store it is, for other child-related purchases. 

Recall notices seen on subsequent visits can alert them if their seat is non-compliant. 

Discount stores were less likely to provide information on registration at the time of sale, 

and department stores reported little knowledge of the registration process. To the extent 

that such stores represent a large share of the child seat market, there is a clear 

opportunity to improve dealer-level communication about the registration process. 

86 
Chapter 6: The Role of Loaner Programs in Child Seat

Registration 

Like dealers, child safety seat loaner and giveaway programs serve as an intermediary 

between manufacturers and consumers. Interviews were conducted with nine 

community-based programs that either lend seats to consumers or give them away at low 

or no cost. These interviews focused on whether and how such programs register their 

seats, and how they manage child seat recalls. They also examined what kind of 

information, if any, such programs provide to consumers regarding the registration and 

recall processes. 

The information is presented here to give an overview of how a number of child seat 

loaner programs operate. The programs are not nationally representative, and 

generalizations cannot be made beyond the programs sampled. Loaner programs 

function at the local level, and operate by methods designed to best suit their specific 

clientele. Therefore, policies are individualized to meet the needs of those participating 

in, as well as sponsoring, the particular program. 

6.1 Loaner Program Interview Background

Less than one percent of child seats belonging to participants in the Consumer survey 

were obtained from loaner programs (Section 3.2.5). In NHTSA’s 1998 Motor Vehicle 

Occupant Safety Survey1

, about one percent of respondents using child seats reported 

obtaining them from a loaner program. 

Programs to be interviewed, identified through an internet search, were selected to 

provide diversity on two key characteristics – organizational affiliation and type of

service. A loaner program loans a seat to a family for a small fee. The seat is expected to 

be returned to the program and loaned again to another family. In low-cost giveaway 

programs, new seats are bought by the participants at a reduced price and become their 

property. Child seats that are rented through a car rental agency are not included in such 

programs. 

Identified programs received a telephone call, during which the study was described, and 

an interview with program staff requested. Letters with discussion topics were faxed to 

the program office, in order to give the staff members time to review them prior to the 

interview. A follow-up call was then made to schedule the interview. The telephone 

interviews were conducted between December 1999 and March 2000. Each interview

lasted approximately 25 to 45 minutes. 

Nine programs were interviewed. Two of these programs were operated by the same

institution, and thus one interview covered both programs. Five programs in the sample 

were affiliated with hospitals and four with public health agencies. In addition, five of 

the programs were low-cost “giveaway” programs, while the remaining four were loaner 

programs. Unless specifically looking at programs that loan seats as distinct from those 

87 
that give them away or sell them at low cost, the term “Loaner Program” will be used to 

refer to all these types of programs. 

6.2 Loaner Program Demographics 

The programs interviewed had been in existence between two and nineteen years. Three 

programs had existed for nineteen years and another for eighteen. These older programs

appear to have been founded in response to laws requiring the use of child safety seats, 

providing a resource for families who otherwise could not have afforded a seat. 

Programs interviewed provide from 100 to 1,000 seats each year. In most cases, the 

loaner programs had a much lower volume, three of the four loaning 100 seats annually. 

The fourth program loaned 800 seats each year. One giveaway program sold 150 seats 

each year, but the remaining ones sold 350 or more each year. 

Child seat loaner and giveaway programs typically have participants come to the program

site to receive some measure of training. Usually this consists of a short video and/or 

demonstration on the correct use and installation of the child seat. Participants read and 

sign a contract or waiver form, and provide some amount of personal information, such 

as name, address, and telephone number. 

Funding sources can be public or private. Programs operated by public health agencies 

rely on Federal and State fund and grant money to purchase seats. Hospital-affiliated 

programs receive private donations and also use public funds to purchase seats. One of 

the programs interviewed is currently supported by grant money obtained from a hospital. 

Another was originally funded with a grant from the Department of Transportation, but 

currently operates through a local health department. Other sources of funding 

mentioned were insurance companies and local National Basketball Association players. 

Two of the programs began as loaner programs, but are currently giveaway programs. 

Problems with seats not being returned, or returned damaged, were mentioned. Another 

program operates as a loaner program, but noted that it has few re-rentals because of

damage or non-return. One program staff member stated seeing program loaner seats for 

sale at yard sales. 

Most of the programs charge between $10 and $25 for the use of the seat, whether loaner 

or giveaway program. One loaner program charges half the purchase price, and one of 

the giveaway programs asks only that participants donate what they can, if they are able 

to contribute at all. 

Four of the programs require that participants meet specific low-income requirements. 

Some have residency requirements in addition to, or instead of, income limits. In 

general, public health agency affiliated programs were more likely to have strict 

eligibility criteria. Two of the programs serve needs other than low-income families. 

One of the programs is used primarily by grandparents, loaning seats for short-term use 

for visiting grandchildren. The program has only twenty seats, but notes about 100 to 

150 rentals per year. This popular program serves a need in its community. Another 

88 
program targets parents of special-needs children. Because the seats are designated for 

children with special medical problems, parents usually learn of the program from

hospital staff. Recipients of this program are more economically diverse than most of the 

other programs. 

Some programs specialize in certain types of seats, such as only loaning infant seats. 

Many of the programs interviewed offer some combination of infant, toddler, convertible, 

and booster seats. 

Two programs do not have any stated requirements or targeting criteria, but their 

outreach programs are designed to reach those who could most benefit from the program. 

Outreach for all the various programs is done at such places as health fairs, police 

departments, and hospitals. Specific methods of outreach mentioned by program staff 

were bulletin boards, newsletters, announcements in pre-natal classes, word of mouth, 

and referrals.

None of the organizations record demographic data on participants. Two respondents 

attempted to estimate the age of participants, one saying 15 to 21, and the other 20 to 25. 

Those that were able to characterize the race and ethnic makeup of participants 

mentioned African-American (four programs), Hispanic (three), and white (one). There 

was overlap among the populations, and five programs were unable to provide any 

description. 

 

The interviews revealed that the length of the loan period (for loaner programs) is 

typically based on the type of seat. Infant seats are typically loaned for nine months, 

toddler and booster seats for up to three years. The program loaning special-needs seats 

provides them for children with medical problems. The seats are usually only needed for 

up to nine weeks during post-surgical recovery. The loaner program targeted at 

grandparents loans seats generally between three days and six months. 

6.3 Loaner Programs and Registration 

Seven of the nine programs have procedures by which staff members register the seat, 

thereby ensuring the seats are registered with the manufacturer. In these programs, the 

cards are completed either by the participants themselves or by program staff, and then 

mailed (usually by program staff) to the manufacturer. Generally, programs register seats 

in the name of the program rather than the participant. However, this is not always the 

case. One loaner program has the first recipient of a new seat register the seat in his or 

her name. If the seat is returned and loaned to another participant, the registration is not 

updated. 

Two programs did not provide for or encourage registration. Furthermore, these 

programs did not even discuss registration with their participants. Both of these were 

giveaway programs, in which case program staff would have no further knowledge of the 

seat in question. In these programs, it is completely up to the participants to register their 

seats. In such cases the likelihood of seat registration is, at best, the same as with seats 

purchased new from a dealer. 

89 
Overall, the program either takes complete responsibility for registering the seat, or none 

at all. It certainly would be beneficial if all programs registered the seats themselves, or 

at least would mention registration to participants at some point, thereby increasing the 

likelihood that it will be done. 

6.4 Loaner Programs and Recalls 

All programs contacted create log-sheets of the information collected from participants. 

In most of the programs, these are used to track participants in the event of a recall. 

However, none of the programs has any procedure to ensure the accuracy of this 

information. In addition, if a participant moves and does not update his/her new contact 

information, the program would be unable to communicate information about a recall. 

Thus, the effectiveness of these log-sheets is limited by the willingness and ability of the 

participants to keep their information with the program current. 

Eight of the nine programs contacted do some type of recall monitoring. Some programs 

actively monitor recalls by looking through periodicals that report recalls and/or checking 

NHTSA’s web site. Other methods mentioned were receiving recall lists and mailings 

from manufacturers. Two programs, both affiliated with public health departments, do 

not monitor recalls themselves, but rely on another local agency (in these cases, a hospital 

and a local police department) to monitor recalls for them. 

It is noteworthy that several of the giveaway programs continue to monitor recalls and, if 

possible, notify participants when one occurs. Both programs that did not discuss 

registration with participants did monitor recalls. One of these programs developed a 

public service announcement alerting recipients to a recall involving a seat another 

agency had distributed. 

Three of the nine interviewed programs had experienced a recall in the past. Two of 

these were loaner programs associated with public health departments. The third was a 

hospital-affiliated giveaway program. The giveaway program, where seats are currently 

registered in the program’s name, experienced a recall about thirteen years ago. The 

respondent could not remember details, but did know that the program contacted families 

with the recalled seats and distributed repair kits, which the participants themselves 

installed. One of the loaner programs, which also currently registers seats in the name of 

the program, experienced a recall about ten years ago. Staff members contacted 

participants by mail. Clients responding to the mail brought the seat to the program

office, where program staff installed the repair kit. In fact, many of the participants had 

heard about the recall on the news and contacted the programs before notices had been 

mailed by the loaner program. Overall, 200 of the 300 program participants involved in 

this recall returned to have their seat fixed. The other loaner program experiencing a 

recall was the one that currently registers seats in the name of the first participant to use 

the new seat. None of the involved seats was on loan at the time, so program staff 

repaired the seats with the kits sent by the manufacturer. No estimate of the time of this 

recall was given, but at least two of the experienced recalls occurred prior to the 

registration card requirement. The programs, and even the seat owners, became aware of 

the recalls by means other than notices from the manufacturers. 

90 
6.5 Conclusions 

Local programs exist to meet the needs of those they serve. Parents needing a seat in 

order to transport their newborn home from the hospital and grandparents needing to use 

a seat for a few days or weeks when a grandchild visits, as well as low-income parents 

who otherwise could not afford a child seat, are able to obtain a seat easily and at a low 

cost. In most cases the programs go a step further, making sure the seats are registered, 

seeing that the children continue to be protected should a recall occur. 

All of the interviewed loaner and giveaway programs provide some type of training on 

how to use and install child safety seats. Most of the programs have registration 

procedures in place to ensure that seats in their program are registered with the 

manufacturer. All three instances where seats used by one of the programs were recalled 

were managed successfully. All programs retain contact information on participants that 

can be used to inform them of a recall. However, the cooperation of participants is 

necessary for this to be effective. They must keep their contact information current, and 

must also respond if the seat they are using is involved in a recall. For those programs 

that register the seat in their own name, participants must respond when contacted by the 

program. Programs that register the seat in the participants’ names rely on the individual 

to have the seat repaired. Those few programs that do not discuss registration rely on the 

participants to both mail in the card and, should the need arise, respond in the event of a 

recall. Programs can also contact these owners using their records of seat models loaned 

and contact information, if the information is current. 

There are some areas in need of improvement. Principally, those programs that neither 

register their seats nor discuss registration with participants are missing an opportunity to 

further their goal of increased child safety. In addition, the loaner program that registers 

the seat in the name of the initial recipient, and doesn’t update the information on 

subsequent loans, might find more success using an alternate method. However, most of 

the programs (eight of the nine) do monitor recalls, and all keep records of how to contact 

participants. In addition, when recalls do occur, these programs use a variety of methods 

to make sure participants are informed. 

91 
Chapter 6 Footnotes 

1. 1998 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey Volume 3: Child Safety Seat 

Report. DOT HS 809-182, U.S. Department of Transportation, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2000. 

92 
Chapter 7: Costs and Benefits 

Requiring a registration card to be attached to each child seat manufactured has increased 

the number of seats registered as well as the number repaired. The total cost to 

consumers for child seat registration and notification is approximately $2.6 million 

annually, or 43 cents per seat sold in the United States. This report estimates that an 

additional 20 to 40 thousand child seats involved in recalls are repaired each year because 

of the registration card requirement. The cost per child seat repaired is estimated to be 

between $66 and $132, close to the current cost of a new convertible child seat. 

7.1 Background: Cost Estimates in the Final Regulatory Evaluation 

(1992) 

At the time the registration rule was issued, NHTSA estimated that related increases in 

the manufacturers’ production cost would be $0.20 to $0.22 for high volume 

manufacturers, and $0.40 to $0.53 for medium volume manufacturers, per restraint, with 

a weighted average cost of $0.34.1

 These estimates, from the Final Regulatory 

Evaluation published in 1992, were in 1990 dollars. At the time there were two high 

volume and four medium volume manufacturers. Medium volume manufacturers were 

defined as those producing between 100,000 and one million seats per year, while high

volume manufacturers produced over one million seats annually. 

Based on information from the manufacturers, the agency determined the markup from 

manufacturing cost to retail price is 2.37 times. This would result in a consumer cost of 

$0.47 to $0.52 per restraint for high volume manufacturers, and $0.95 to $1.26 for 

medium volume manufacturers. While there were a few manufacturers with smaller 

numbers of sales, whose costs were estimated to be twice that of the medium-sized 

manufacturers, they sell such a small number of seats that including them would not have 

a meaningful effect on the weighted cost average. NHTSA estimated that the average 

cost increase would be $0.80 per child restraint. With annual sales (at the time) of 4.5 

million child seats, the total cost was estimated to be about $3.6 million per year. 

(Currently, about six million child seats are produced annually.) 

The ranges of costs above resulted from the differing estimates of the return rate of 

registration cards (30 to 40 percent), and a range of estimates for record keeping costs for 

the medium volume manufacturers. As the return rate increases, the cost per card would 

become lower while, of course, the total cost will increase. The weighted average of

$0.80 per child restraint was based on a 35 percent return rate. 

At the time of the rule, the price of infant seats averaged about $30, with a range from 

$20 to $82. The price of convertible seats ranged from $45 to $120, with an average 

price of $50. The child restraint market has not historically been a high profit industry. 

If the total expense of the registration card (the average 80 cents per seat) were added to 

the child restraint rather than taken out of manufacturers profits, it would have increased 

the price of a typical infant seat by 2.7 percent, and a typical convertible seat by 1.6 

percent. 

93 
7.2 Updated Estimate of Costs Associated with Child Seat Registration 

There are several sources of expenses to consider in determining the overall cost of 

amending FMVSS 213 to require registration cards accompany all child seats sold. The 

cards themselves are produced and attached to every child seat that is manufactured. 

These costs are realized regardless of whether the consumer actually registers the seat, 

and whether or not a recall occurs. 

The number of child seats produced each year varies by manufacturer. Using available 

production data from 1994 through 2000 provided to NHTSA by the manufacturers, an 

average number of seats manufactured each year was determined for each manufacturer. 

Total production averaged 6,115,000 seats per year, including 6,000,000 by high-volume 

manufacturers and 115,000 by medium volume manufacturers. 

When a consumer completes and mails the form, the return postage cost is then realized. 

In addition, expenditures must be made for recording and storing the information. The 

remaining costs involved occur only if there is a recall. These involve mailing the recall 

notification to the consumer. The actual costs involved to repair the seat, which can 

range from mailing a label to the consumer to providing a replacement child seat, will not 

be counted as a “cost of registration,” even though higher registration rates will increase 

the number of seats actually repaired in a recall. 

Several costs were estimated in the Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE). For costs that 

would not be expected to change, the same estimates will be used. Costs in the FRE were 

expressed in 1990 dollars. These costs will be adjusted to 2000 dollars in the present 

report, obtained by multiplying costs by 1.237, according to the U. S. Department of 

Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic 

Product. 

7.2.1 Cost of the Registration Card 

Cost estimates in the FRE were obtained by summing several individual sources. The 

cost of cutting and printing the cards themselves was estimated to be $0.02 (in 1990 

dollars), regardless of the size of the manufacturer. An additional cost of $0.05 per seat 

would be required for materials needed to attach the card to the child seat. The method of 

attachment is left up to the manufacturer, as long as it is attached to any surface of the 

restraint that will make contact with a child properly placed in the restraint. This is to 

assure the seat owner will notice the registration card. 

In addition to providing a postage-paid registration card, manufacturers are also required 

to attach a label to the car seat. The purpose of the label is to provide information on 

child seat registration, particularly for consumers who are not the original owners of the 

seat. If a seat were obtained secondhand, the registration card would no longer be 

attached. Therefore, the label provides a phone number and/or mailing address that 

subsequent owners can use to register the seat. The estimated cost of this differed by the 

number of seats produced by the manufacturer. High volume manufacturers were 

expected to spend $0.04 per child seat for labeling, and medium volume manufacturers, 

$0.07. 

94 
In combination, printing and attaching the card and label would cost high volume 

manufacturers $0.11 per each child seat produced, and medium volume manufacturers, 

$0.14. Multiplying each of these by 1.237 gives the equivalent in 2000 dollars, $0.14 for 

high volume manufacturers, and $0.17 for medium volume manufacturers. Thus, the cost 

of the label and registration card, for each seat manufactured, would be: 

($0.14× 6,000,000) + ($0.17 ×115,000) = $859,550

This would be the actual cost incurred by the manufacturers. Using information provided 

by the manufacturers, the FRE estimated the price markup from manufacturing cost to 

retail cost to be 2.37. Thus, the consumer cost is: 

$859,550× 2.37 = $2,037,134

This would be the cost to consumers for producing and attaching the label and 

registration card to each child seat produced. 

7.2.2 Cost of Returned Registration Cards 

According to the United States Postal Service Business Office, there are four payment 

options for business reply mail (BRM). Each of the four alternatives requires an annual 

permit fee of $125. Basic BRM would be used for the smallest volume mailings, as the 

cost per piece is the charge for first class postage plus 35 cents per piece. Since the 

registration reply is a card, rather than a letter, the charge would be the 21 cents postage 

plus the per piece charge, for a total of 56 cents per piece. High-Volume BRM is 

available at an additional annual accounting fee of $375. With this option, the postage 

for each card remains the same, but the per piece charge is ten cents. Thus, the annual 

cost is $500 ($125 + $375), with a per piece cost of 31 cents. This is best suited if the 

return volume is approximately 1,500 pieces or more per year. If barcoded automation 

compatible cards are used, then Qualified Business Reply Mail (QBRM) can be used. 

This also requires the annual permit and accounting fees totaling $500, but qualifies for a 

lower QBRM automation First-Class Mail postage rate. For cards, this postage cost is 18 

cents, added to a five cent per piece charge, for a total cost of 23 cents per piece. Finally, 

High-Volume QBRM also requires the annual permit and accounting fees, as well as an

additional quarterly fee of $1,800. The postage for each card is the same as for QBRM 

(18 cents), but the per piece charge is reduced to one cent, for a total of 19 cents per 

piece. This is best suited if return volume is approximately 45,000 pieces or more 

quarterly. 

Each of the three large volume manufacturers would expect to receive more than 180,000 

(4 x 45,000) returned registration cards annually. The most cost effective option for them

would be the High-Volume QBRM. For the medium volume manufacturer, producing an 

average of 115,000 seats per year, the registration rate of 27 percent would yield about 

31,000 cards per year. The QBRM would be most cost effective for this manufacturer. 

To determine the total annual cost of the returned registration cards, the yearly and the 

total cost per piece must be used. Assuming the appropriate QBRM is used by each 

95 
manufacturer, this would cost each of the three high volume manufacturers the annual 

permit fee of $125, the annual accounting fee of $375, and four quarterly High Volume 

QBRM fees of $1,800, for a total of $7700. The cost for all three manufacturers would 

total $23,100. Using a registration rate of 27 percent, the number of cards returned to 

these manufacturers would be (0.27 x 6,000,000) or 1,620,000. At a cost of 19 cents per 

piece, this totals $307,800. Added to the yearly charge, this results in a cost of $330,900 

for the high volume manufacturers. 

For the medium volume manufacturer, the annual permit and accounting fees would total 

$500. The QBRM cost of 23 cents per piece, plus the annual fees, would result in an 

annual cost of [$500 + (0.27 x 115,000 x 0.23) = $7,642. The total return postage cost 

for all child seat manufacturers would then be $330,900 plus $7,642, or $338,542. 

Because year 2000 data is the most recent used, and costs are expressed in year 2000 

dollars, postage prices in effect in the year 2000 are used for all calculations. 

 

Manufacturers are permitted to retain purchasers’ information by any method that would 

allow retrieval in the event of a recall. Large manufacturers indicated that they had 

available storage facilities for all required recordkeeping. Smaller manufactures might 

find it more cost effective to hire an outside records retention firm to manage the data. 

Recordkeeping costs are estimated to be about $.04 per returned card for the high volume 

manufacturers. Estimates for medium volume manufacturers range from $0.25 to $0.38. 

Using the midpoint gives an estimate of $0.315 per returned card. These costs are based 

on costs estimated in the FRE, updated to 2000 dollars. 

As stated earlier, approximately 27 percent of consumers return the registration card. 

Therefore, the storage cost to manufacturers for each returned card is: 

[($0.04× 6,000,000) + ($0.315×115,000)]×.27 = $74,581

The total of return postage plus storage costs, for all manufacturers, is $338,542 + 

$74,581, or $413,123. 

This is still a cost of doing business for the manufacturer, but not one that involves the 

retailer. Since cards are mailed directly to the manufacturer by the consumer, and the 

dealer is not involved in the transaction, there is no dealer profit involved. Thus, while 

there would be some markup expected for the consumer by the manufacturer, it would 

not be the factor of 2.37 used above. The wholesale or dealer cost markup of 1.33 is used 

for vehicles as well as original equipment components or parts in NHTSA cost analyses 

of safety equipment.2

 The same markup will be assumed for wholesale costs incurred for 

child seats, in this case the cost of returning the registration card. The cost to consumers 

would then be: 

$413,123×1.33 = $549,454

96 
This is the cost of the cards that are returned and the data stored. The rate of return 

obviously affects this cost. If more people registered their child seats, the total cost 

would increase. 

7.2.3 Cost of Recall Notification Mailed to Consumers 

The costs associated with recall notification are the production and mailing of the notice. 

The cost of the notice itself will be assumed the same as the registration card. The size of

the two-part registration card (the form itself is half of the card, torn off at a perforation 

from the instructions) is approximately the same as a recall notification card typically

mailed to consumers. Thus, the current cost is estimated at $0.03 per card, regardless of 

the volume of the manufacturer. 

The cost associated with mailing the notification is based on the size of the card, 

considered letter rate, and the method by which the cards are pre-sorted. The current cost 

to mail an 8 1⁄2 by 5 1⁄2 card at the First Class pre-sorted 3-digit zip code rate is $0.269 per 

card. The cost is the same regardless of the number of cards mailed, but the rate requires 

that at least 150 pieces be sent to a 3-digit zip code, each covering a major metropolitan 

area. Therefore, at this postal rate, the total cost of the card to notify consumers of a 

recall would be $0.299 per card. If fewer than 150 cards were to be sent to any 3-digit 

zip code location, they would still cost only 28 cents each to mail, provided the 

appropriate address barcode was printed on each card. The total cost to print and mail 

each notice would then be 31 cents for those not meeting the 150 minimum for a 3-digit 

zip code. 

Notices are sent to consumers if the child seat they registered is recalled. For estimating 

the cost of the FMVSS 213 amendment, costs of recall notification mailings would apply 

only to those experiencing a recall. Thus, the percentage of recalled seats must be 

determined. This value is greatly affected by the number of seats recalled in a given year. 

To minimize yearly variations, recall and manufacturing data will be used for 1995 

through 1999. For these years, data from each of the three high volume and the one 

medium volume manufacturer used above are available. An overall average recall rate 

will thereby be determined. 

For recalls involving seats produced in earlier and/or later years as well as the included 

years for which manufacturing data are available, it will be assumed that an equal number 

of seats were produced each month, and the appropriate proportional count will be used. 

With these parameters, there were an estimated total 2,468,921 seats manufactured (by 

the noted four manufacturers) from 1995 through 1999 that were later recalled. During 

these same five years, these manufactures produced a total of 31,300,900 seats. Thus, the 

rate of recall for child seats over these years was 7.89 percent. 

Given that 27 percent of seats are registered, and an average of 7.89 percent are recalled, 

this makes the manufacturers’ cost of recall notification: 

($0.299× 6,115,000) × 0.27 × 0.0789 = $38,950

97 
Again, this cost does not involve the retailer, so the cost to the consumer is then: 

$38,950×1.33 = $51,804

This is the annual cost to all consumers for the mailing of recall notices to those that have 

registered their child seats. Obviously, the cost depends on the number of seats recalled. 

Even though seats were manufactured in an earlier year, these costs are realized at the 

time of the recall. However, given the year-to-year variation, this is the average yearly

cost that would be expected. 

Exhibit 7-1 summarizes the costs previously determined. Both costs to manufacturers 

and the final cost to consumers are presented. Note that registration cards are attached to 

every child seat manufactured and the cost to consumers assumes a 2.37 retail markup. 

The cost of printing and receiving the registration cards, and mailing recall notifications, 

do not involve the dealer, and thus assume a wholesale markup of 1.33. 

Exhibit 7-1: Costs Associated with Child Seat Registration 

Cost to

Manufacturers 

Cost to 

Consumers 

Attached Registration Cards $859,550 $2,037,134

Returned Cards $413,123 $549,454

Recall Notification $38,950 $51,804

Total $1,311,623 $2,638,392

The cost to consumers for child seat registration and notification is approximately $2.6 

million annually. 

7.3 Benefits of Required Child Seat Registration Cards 

After the seat registration requirement, the rate of recall response (reported in Exhibit 

2-4) went from 13.8 to 21.5 percent, an increase of 7.7 percentage points. As noted in 

Section 7.2.3, there were approximately 2,500,000 child seats recalled over the five-year 

period 1995 through 1999. This is an average of 500,000 recalled seats per year. Smaller 

manufacturers are not included in these calculations, and thus the actual total would be 

somewhat higher. In addition, note that only verifiable recalls were included, such as 

those involving structural defects. Seats recalled for label errors are not included in the 

calculations.

Therefore, if the entire increase of 7.7 percentage points of 500,000 recalled seats were 

repaired because of the required registration card, the result is 38,500 additional seats 

repaired annually. There has been an increased awareness in child seat safety over the 

years, and thus the repair rate might have increased somewhat even without the 

registration card requirement, as discussed in Section 2.3.2. Even if only half of the 

increase is due to the registration card alone, 19,250 seats are repaired each year because 

of the registration card attached to each child seat. Thus, an additional 20 to 40 thousand 

child seats involved in recalls are repaired each year because of the registration card

98 
requirement. This study does not attempt to estimate the number of deaths or injuries 

prevented because non-compliant seats are repaired. 

As determined in Section 7.2, the total consumer cost of the registration card is $2.6 

million annually. When the cost of registration is distributed over the six million child 

seats sold each year, it amounts to 43 cents per seat, which is less than one percent of the 

cost of a typical new safety seat. 

99 
Chapter 7 Footnotes 

1. Final Regulatory Evaluation: Registration of Child Restraints FMVSS 

213. NHTSA, Plans and Policy, Office of Regulatory Analysis, May, 1992. 

2. Cost Estimates of Manual & Automatic Crash Protection Systems (CP’s) in 

Selected 1988-1992 Model Year Passenger Cars Brake Systems Volume 1. 

DOT HS 807 949, September, 1992, p. 16. 

100 
Appendix A: General Consumer Survey 

1. How did you get [this safety seat/these safety seats]? Did you . . (READ CHOICES) 

1 Buy the seat(s)? 

2 Receive it as a gift? ................................................................ SKIP TO QUESTION 15

3 Borrow it from a friend or relative?....................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 14 

4 Or, borrow it from a loaner program?.................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 13 

5 Other 

 1a. Specify: _________________________________________________

6 Don’t know or refused ........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 13

2. Did you purchase the safety seat(s) new or used? 

 1 New 

2 Used 

3 Don’t know or refused 

3. Did you buy the seat(s) at a store, on the internet, from a mail order catalog, or 

someplace else? 

1 At a store 

2 On the internet ........................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 5 

3 From a mail order catalog...............................SKIP TO QUESTION 6 

4 Someplace else 

3a. Specify: ..............................................SKIP TO QUESTION 7 

5 Don’t know or refused...................................SKIP TO QUESTION 7 

4. At what type of store did you buy this child safety seat(s)? Was it . . . 

1 A discount department store‚ such as Walmart‚ Target‚ or K-mart‚ 

2 A regular department store‚ 

3 A chain child or baby specialty store‚ such as Toys ‘r Us‚ 

4 A local independent child or baby specialty store‚ or 

5 A second-hand or resale shop 

 6 Other 

 7 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 7 

101 
5. At what type of internet site did you buy this child safety seat(s)? Was it . . . 

1 A direct-sale site that specializes in child or baby products‚ 

2 A direct-sale site that also sells other types of merchandise‚ or 

3 An auction site? 

4 Other 

 5a. Specify: _________________________________________________

5 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 7 

6. From what type of mail-order catalog did you buy this child safety seat(s)? Was 

it one that . . . 

1 Specializes in child or baby products‚ or 

2 Also sells other types of merchandise?

3 Other 

 6a. Specify: _________________________________________________

5 Don’t know or refused 

7. How wide a selection of child safety seats was available where you purchased 

your seat(s)? Would you say there were. . . (READ CHOICES)

1 Not many at all, 

2 A lot to choose from, or

3 Somewhere in between? 

4 Don’t know or refused 

8. What was your MAIN reason for choosing the seat(s) you bought?

 1 Recommended by friend/relative........................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15

 2 Recommended by government agency 

 3 Recommended by non-government agency........................... SKIP TO QUESTION 10 

 4 Recommended by child/parenting media or publication ....... SKIP TO QUESTION 11

 5 Recommended by general/consumer media or publication... SKIP TO QUESTION 12

 6 Brand name reputation/loyalty............................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15

7 Price ....................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15

8 Other ...................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15 

 8a. Specify: _________________________________________________

9 Don’t know or refused ............................................................ SKIPTO QUESTION 15

102 
9. Record the specific Government agency: 

 1 U.S. Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (DOT/NHTSA) 

2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

3 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

 4 Federal Consumer Information Center (e.g., Pueblo, Colorado) 

5 Other Federal Government Agency 

 9a. Specify: _________________________________________________

6 State Government Agency 

 9b. Specify: _________________________________________________ 

 7 Local Government Agency 

 9c. Specify: _________________________________________________

9 Don’t know or refuse 

SKIP TO QUESTION 15

10. Record the specific non-government organization: 

1 American Automobile Association (AAA) 

2 American Pediatrics Association (APA) 

3 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

0 Other 

 10a. Specify: _______________________________________________

9 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 15 

103 
11. Record the specific child/parenting media or publication: 

1 “Child” Magazine 

2 “Mother and Baby” Magazine 

3 “Mothering” magazine 

4 “Parenting” Magazine

5 “Parents” Magazine 

6 Other child/parenting Magazine 

 11a. Specify: ________________________________________________

 7 Child/parenting newspaper column/article or newsletter 

 11b. Specify: ________________________________________________

8 Child/parenting book 

 11c. Specify: ________________________________________________

9 Child/parenting television program

 11d. Specify: ________________________________________________

 10 Child/parenting Internet site 

 11e. Specify: ________________________________________________

 11 Other 

 12 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 15 

12. Record the specific general/consumer media or publication 

1 Consumer Reports Magazine 

2 Good Housekeeping Magazine 

3 Other General/consumer magazine 

12a. Specify: ________________________________________________ 

4 General/consumer newspaper article/column or newsletter 

 12b. Specify: _______________________________________________

5 General/consumer book 

12c. Specify: ______________________________________________ 

6 General/consumer television program 

12d. Specify: _______________________________________________

7 Consumer Internet site 

 12e. Specify: ______________________________________________

8 Other 

9 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 15

104 
13. What type of organization lent you the seat(s)?

1 A hospital 

2 A public health department 

3 A school 

4 A day care program

5 Other 

 13a. Specify: _________________________________________

6 Don’t know or refused 

14. How long did you borrow the seat(s) for?

1 1 month or less 

2 2 - 6 months

3 7 - 12 months 

4 13 - 24 months 

5 More than 24 months 

6 Don’t know or refused 

15. We know from NHTSA records that you registered the seat(s) with the 

manufacturer. When you got your seat(s), did anyone provide you information 

about the registration process?

1 Yes

2 No........................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 17

3 Don’t know or refused .......................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 17

16. Who provided you information? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

1 A friend or relative 

2 A store salesperson or manager 

3 A representative from the manufacturer 

4 A loaner program representative 

5 Other: 

16a. Specify: _______________________________________________

7 Don’t know or refused 

105 
17. What were your MAIN reasons for registering the child safety seat(s)? (SELECT 

ALL THAT APPLY) 

1 To allow notification in case of recall/safety concerns 

 2 To provide warranty protection 

3 Was told to 

4 Other #1 

 17a. Specify: ________________________________________________

5 Other #2 

 17b. Specify: ________________________________________________

7 Don’t know or refused 

18. Now I would like to ask you some questions about the recall. How did you first

find out about the recall? (CHECK ONE) 

1 Received written notification 

2 Saw an announcement on television.......................................SKIP TO QUESTION 20 

3 Heard an announcement on radio ...........................................SKIP TO QUESTION 20

4 Read an announcement in a newspaper or magazine 

18a. Specify: _____________________________________SKIP TO QUESTION 20

5 Read an announcement on the Internet...................................SKIP TO QUESTION 20 

6 Saw an announcement on a store bulletin board.....................SKIP TO QUESTION 20

7 Heard about it by word of mouth (from a friend or relative)..SKIP TO QUESTION 20

8 Other 

18b. Specify: ____________________________________ .SKIP TO QUESTION 20 

9 Don’t know or refused ............................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 20

19. Who did the notification come from?

1 From the manufacturer........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 21

2 From the retailer 

0 Other 

19a. Specify: ________________________________________________ 

9 Don’t know or refused 

20. Did you ever receive written notification about the recall from the manufacturer?

1 Yes 

2 No 

9 Don’t know or refused 

106 
21. Did the manufacturer ever provide you with instructions telling you what to do 

until the safety seat(s) was repaired or replaced? 

1 Yes 

2 No............................................................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 23

9 Don’t know or refused ............................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 23 

22. How clear were the company’s instructions about what to do with the defective 

child safety seat(s) until it was fixed or replaced? Would you say the instructions 

were... (READ CHOICES) 

1 Not at all clear, 

2 Fairly clear, or 

3 Extremely clear? 

4 Don’t know or refused 

23. Was the seat(s) fixed or replaced? 

1 Yes .........................................................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 25 

2 No 

3 Don’t know or refused ............................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 28 

24.What were the main reasons it wasn’t fixed or replaced? 

(SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Too busy; never got around to it 

2 Lost/misplaced recall information/replacement parts 

3 No longer owned/used the seat at time of recall 

4 Didn’t fell that defect would cause injury 

5 Didn’t understand what to do 

6 Didn’t meet criteria for recall 

7 Unable to reach manufacturer [specify] 

24a. Specify: ________________________________________________ 

8 Manufacturer failed to provide parts/refund/new seat 

9 Other 

24b. Specify: ________________________________________________ 

11 Don’t know or refused

SKIP TO QUESTION 28 

107 
25. How did you get the seat(s) fixed or replaced? Did the manufacturer... 

1 Provide replacement parts, 

2 Replace the seat,..................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 28 

3 Provide a refund,.................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 28 

4 Have you return the seat for repairs, or.................................. SKIP TO QUESTION 28 

0 Did you do something else?

25a. Specify: ____________________________________ SKIP TO QUESTION 28 

9 Don’t know or refused ........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 28 

26. How easy was it to understand the manufacturer’s instructions to fix the seat(s)?

Would you say it was . . . (READ CHOICES) 

1 Not at all easy, 

2 Fairly easy, or 

3 Extremely easy?

4 Don’t know or refused 

27. How easy was it to actually fix the child safety seat(s)? 

(REPEAT CODES AS NECESSARY)

1 Not at all easy, 

2 Fairly easy, or 

3 Extremely easy?

4 Don’t know or refused 

28. O.K., so far we’ve talked about child safety seat(s) that you have used. Next I 

have some general questions about child safety seat registrations and recalls. 

Generally speaking, how important do you think it is to register child safety 

seats? Would you say it is: (READ CHOICES) 

1 Not at all important, 

2 Somewhat important, 

3 Fairly important, 

4 Very important, or 

5 Extremely important?

6 Don’t know or refused 

108 
29. How important do you think it is to recall unsafe child safety seats? (REPEAT

CODES AS NECESSARY)

1 Not at all important, 

2 Somewhat important, 

3 Fairly important. 

4 Very important, or 

5 Extremely important?

6 Don’t know or refused 

30. Manufacturers can use a number of different methods to inform people of safety 

seat recalls. I’m going to read a list of methods, and I’d like you to tell me which 

method you think would be most effective in letting consumers know about 

recalls. (READ LIST AND CHECK ONE)

1 A letter from the manufacturer to safety seat owners who sent in the 

registration card, 

2 A television announcement to the general public, 

3 A newspaper or magazine announcement to the general public, 

4 An announcement on the Internet, or 

5 A notice posted in retail stores? 

 6 Other 

30a. Specify: ________________________________________________ 

7 Don’t know or refused 

31. Now I’d like to ask just a few questions about you and your family. This 

information is for statistical purposes only and will be kept confidential. RECORD

GENDER: 

1 Female 

2 Male 

32. What year were you born?

1 Will provide # 

2 Refuses 

 32.a ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___| 

109 
33. How many children under the age of 13 live with you either full- or part-time?

1 Will provide # 

2 Refuses................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 45

 33a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___| 

34. What [is his or her age/are their ages]? 

1 Will provide

2 Refuses to provide.................................................................. SKIP TO QUESTION 45

 (1) (2)

 Years Months

35. Child 1 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 (1) (2)

 Years Months 

36. Child 2 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 (1) (2)

 Years Months 

37. Child 3 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 (1) (2)

 Years Months 

38. Child 4 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 Years Months 

39. Child 5 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 (1) (2)

 Years Months 

40. Child 6 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 (1) (2)

 Years Months 

41. Child 7 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 (1) (2)

 Years Months 

42. Child 8 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 (1) (2)

 Years Months 

43. Child 9 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

 (1) (2)

 Years Months 

44. Child 10............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

110 
45. By which of the following racial or ethnic groups do you typically identify 

yourself . . . 

1 African-American or Black‚ but not Hispanic 

2 Asian-American or Pacific Islander 

3 Caucasian or White‚ but not Hispanic 

4 Hispanic or Latino 

5 Native American or Alaska Native 

6 Or some other way 

45a. Specify: _______________________________________________ 

9 Don’t know or refused 

46. Would you say you live in a primarily urban, suburban, or rural area?

1 Urban 

2 Suburban 

3 Rural 

9 Don’t know or refused 

47. What is your home zip code?

1 Will provide # 

 47a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___|

2 Refuses 

 

48. What is the highest grade or year of schooling you’ve completed?

1 Less than high school graduate 

2 High school graduate/GED 

3 Some college

4 Associate degree 

5 Bachelors degree 

6 Masters degree 

7 Doctorate/professional degree 

9 Don’t know or refused 

111 
49. What is your marital status? 

 1 Single SKIP TO QUESTION 51

2 Married 

3 Divorced/separated................................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 51

4 Widowed ...............................................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 51

9 Don’t know or refused...........................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 51

50. What is the highest grade or year of schooling that your spouse has completed? 

1 Less than high school graduate 

2 High school graduate/GED 

3 Some college

4 Associate degree 

5 Bachelors degree 

6 Masters degree 

7 Doctorate/professional degree 

9 Don’t know or refused 

51. Approximately what is your total annual household income before taxes? Is it 

above or below $50‚000?

1 Above 

2 Below......................................................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 53

9 Don’t know or refused 

52. Is it:

1 At least $50‚000‚ but less than $60‚000 

2 At least $60‚000‚ but less then $70‚000 

3 More than $70‚000?

9 Don’t know or refused 

This concludes our survey. Thank you again for your time. 

53. Is it:

1 Under $20‚000 

2 At least $20‚000‚ but less then $30‚000 

3 At least $30‚000‚ but less than $40‚000 

4 At least $40‚000‚ but less than $50‚000?

9 Don’t know or refused 

This concludes our survey. Thank you again for your time. 

112 
Appendix B: Recall Survey 

1. How did you get this/these safety seat(s)? Did you . . . (READ CHOICES) 

1 Buy the seat(s)? 

2 Receive it/them as a gift?....................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15

3 Borrow it/them from a friend or relative?.............................. SKIP TO QUESTION 14 

4 Or, borrow it/them from a loaner program?........................... SKIP TO QUESTION 13 

5 Other 

 1a. Specify: _____________________________________ SKIP TO QUESTION 15

6 Don’t know or refused ........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15

2. Did you purchase the safety seat(s) new or used? 

 1 New 

2 Used 

3 Don’t know or refused 

3. Did you buy the seat(s) at a store, on the Internet, from a mail order catalog, or 

someplace else? 

1 At a store 

2 On the Internet ........................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 5 

3 From a mail order catalog................................SKIP TO QUESTION 6

4 Someplace else 

3a. Specify: _______________________________SKIP TO QUESTION 7 

5 Don’t know or refused....................................SKIP TO QUESTION 7 

4. At what type of store did you buy this/these child safety seat(s)? Was it . . . 

1 A discount department store‚ such as Walmart‚ Target‚ or K-mart‚ 

2 A regular department store‚ 

3 A chain child or baby specialty store‚ such as Toys ‘r Us‚ 

4 A local independent child or baby specialty store‚ or 

5 A second-hand or resale shop. 

6 Other 

7 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 7 

113 
5. At what type of internet site did you buy this/these child safety seat(s)? Was it ... 

1 A direct-sale site that specializes in child or baby products‚ 

2 A direct-sale site that also sells other types of merchandise‚ or 

3 An auction site? 

4 Other 

 5a. Specify: ____________________________________________

5 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 7 

6. From what type of mail-order catalog did you buy this/these child safety seat(s)? 

Was it one that . . . 

1 Specializes in child or baby products‚ or 

2 Also sells other types of merchandise?

3 Other 

 6a. Specify: _____________________________________________

4 Don’t know or refused 

7. How wide a selection of child safety seats was available where you purchased 

your seat(s)? Would you say there were. . . (READ CHOICES)

1 Not many at all, 

2 A lot to choose from

3 Somewhere in between, or 

4 Was the seat you purchased the only one available?

5 Don’t know or refused 

8. What was your MAIN reason for choosing the seat(s) you bought?

1 Recommended by friend/relative........................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15

2 Recommended by government agency 

3 Recommended by non-government agency........................... SKIP TO QUESTION 10 

4 Recommended by child/parenting media or publication ....... SKIP TO QUESTION 11

5 Recommended by general/consumer media or publication... SKIP TO QUESTION 12 

6 Liked feature (s) or appearance of seat ................................. SKIP TO QUESTION 15

7 Brand name reputation/loyalty .............................................. SKIP TO QUESTION 15

8 Price ....................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15

9 Other ...................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 15 

 8a. Specify: _______________________________________________

10 Don’t know or refused ............................................................ SKIPTO QUESTION 15

114 
9. Record the specific Government agency: 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (DOT/NHTSA) 

2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

3 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

4 Federal Consumer Information Center (e.g., Pueblo, Colorado) 

5 Other Federal Government Agency 

 9a. Specify: _____________________________________________

6 State Government Agency 

 9b. Specify: _____________________________________________ 

7 Local Government Agency 

 9c. Specify: _____________________________________________

8 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 15

10. Record the specific non-government organization: 

1 American Automobile Association (AAA) 

2 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 

3 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

4 Other 

 10a. Specify: ______________________________________________

5 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 15

115 
11. Record the specific child/parenting media or publication: 

1 “Child” Magazine 

2 “Mother and Baby” Magazine 

3 “Mothering” magazine 

4 “Parenting” Magazine

5 “Parents” Magazine 

6 Other child/parenting Magazine [specify] 

7 Child/parenting newspaper column/article or newsletter [specify]

8 Child/parenting book [specify] 

9 Child/parenting television program [specify] 

 10 Child/parenting Internet site [specify]

 11 Other 

 11a. Specify: ___________________________________________

 12 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 15

12. Record the specific general/consumer media or publication 

1 “Consumer Reports” Magazine 

2 “Good Housekeeping” Magazine 

3 Other General/consumer magazine 

12a. Specify: ____________________________________________ 

4 General/consumer newspaper article/column or newsletter 

 12b. Specify: ____________________________________________

5 General/consumer book 

12c. Specify: ____________________________________________ 

6 General/consumer television program 

12d. Specify: ____________________________________________

7 Consumer Internet site 

 12e. Specify: ___________________________________________

8 Other 

 12f. Specify: ____________________________________________

9 Don’t know or refused 

SKIP TO QUESTION 15

116 
13. What type of organization lent you the seat(s)? 

1 A hospital 

2 A public health department 

3 A school 

4 A day care program

5 Other 

 13a. Specify: _____________________________________________

6 Don’t know or refused 

14. How long did you borrow the seat(s) for?

1 1 month or less 

2 2 - 6 months

3 7 - 12 months 

4 13 - 24 months 

5 More than 24 months 

6 Don’t know or refused 

15. We know from NHTSA records that you registered the seat(s) with the 

manufacturer. When you got your seat(s), did anyone provide you information 

about the registration process?

1 Yes 

2 No........................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 17

3 Don’t know or refused .......................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 17

16. Who provided you information? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

1 A friend or relative 

2 A store salesperson or manager 

3 A representative from the manufacturer 

4 A loaner program representative 

5 Other: 

16a. Specify: ____________________________________________ 

6 No more apply 

7 Don’t know or refused 

117 
17. What were your MAIN reasons for registering the child safety seat(s)? (SELECT 

ALL THAT APPLY) 

1 To allow notification in case of recall/safety concerns 

 2 To provide warranty protection 

3 Was told to 

4 Other #1 

 17a. Specify: _____________________________________________

5 Other #2 

 17b. Specify: ____________________________________________ 

6 No more apply

7 Don’t know or refused 

18. Now I would like to ask you some questions about the recall. How did you first

find out about the recall? (CHECK ONE) 

1 Received written notification 

2 Saw an announcement on television.......................................SKIP TO QUESTION 22 

3 Heard an announcement on radio ...........................................SKIP TO QUESTION 22

4 Read an announcement in a newspaper or magazine .............SKIP TO QUESTION 20

5 Read an announcement on the internet ...................................SKIP TO QUESTION 21 

6 Saw an announcement on a store bulletin board.....................SKIP TO QUESTION 22

7 Heard about it by word of mouth (from a friend or relative)..SKIP TO QUESTION 22

8 Other 

18a. Specify: _____________________________________SKIP TO QUESTION 22 

9 Don’t know or refused ............................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 22

19. Who did the notification come from?

1 From the manufacturer........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 23

2 From the retailer .................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 22

3 Other 

19a. Specify: _____________________________.......... SKIP TO QUESTION 22

4 Don’t know or refused .......................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 22

118 
20. Record the type of publication 

1 General/Consumer Magazine (Time, Consumer Reports) 

2 Child/Parenting Magazine (Child, Parenting, Parents) 

3 Other type of magazine 

 20a. Specify: ____________________________________________ 

4 Local Newspaper 

5 National Newspaper (E.G., USA Today) 

6 Other type of Newspaper 

 20b. Specify: ____________________________________________ 

7 Other type of publication 

 20c. Specify: ____________________________________________

8 Doesn’t know/remember or refuses to answer 

SKIP TO QUESTION 22

21. What type of website was it?

1 DOT/NHTSA

2 Other Government 

3 Child/Parenting/Family information 

4 Consumer information 

5 Store 

6 Television/Newspaper/Magazine 

7 Other 

21a. Specify: _____________________________________________

8 Doesn’t know/remember or refuses to answer 

22. Did you ever receive written notification about the recall from the manufacturer?

1 Yes 

2 No 

3 Don’t know or refused 

23. Did the manufacturer ever provide you with instructions –either written or verbaltelling you what to do until the safety seat(s) was repaired or replaced?

1 Yes 

2 No............................................................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 25

3 Don’t know or refused ............................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 25 

119 
24. How clear were the company’s instructions about what to do with the defective 

child safety seat(s) until it was fixed or replaced? Would you say the instructions 

were... (READ CHOICES) 

1 Not at all clear, 

2 Fairly clear, or 

3 Extremely clear? 

4 Don’t know or refused 

25. Was the seat(s) fixed or replaced, either by the manufacturer, by you, or by 

someone else?

1 Yes .........................................................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 28 

2 No 

3 Don’t know or refused ............................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 34 

26. To help us understand better people’s concerns and problems with the recall 

process, could you please tell me why not? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Too busy; never got around to it 

2 Lost/misplaced recall information/replacement parts 

3 No longer owned the seat at time of recall 

4 No longer using the seat at time of recall 

5 Didn’t feel that defect would cause injury 

6 Didn’t understand what to do 

7 Didn’t meet criteria for recall 

8 Unable to reach manufacturer 

9 Manufacturer failed to provide parts/refund/new seat 

10 Other 

26a. Specify: _______________________________________________ 

11 No more apply 

12 Don’t know or refused 

If answers do not include “8” or “9”, Skip to Question 34 

27. Would you please tell me specifically what happened? (RECORD DETAILS ABOUT 

RESPONDENT’S CONTACTS WITH OR ATTEMPT TO REACH MANUFACTURER 

AND/OR MANUFACTURER’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE PARTS/REFUND/NEW SEAT)

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ 

SKIP TO QUESTION 34

120 
28. How did you get the seat(s) fixed or replaced? Did the manufacturer... 

1 Provide replacement parts, .................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 30

2 Replace the seat,..................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 34 

3 Provide a refund,.................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 34 

4 Have you return the seat for repairs, or.................................. SKIP TO QUESTION 34 

5 Did you or someone you know take action on your own?

28a. Specify: ______________________________________________

6 Don’t know or refused ........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 34 

29. What did you or this person do about the defective seat? Did you . . . 

1 Fix it on your own, or 

2 Just buy another seat?

3 Other 

 29a. Specify: _______________________________________ 

SKIP TO QUESTION 34 

30. For my next few questions, I need you to think separately about the instructions

the manufacturer sent you with the replacement parts, versus the effort it took to 

actually replace the parts. How easy was it to understand the manufacturer’s 

instructions for fixing the seat(s)? Would you say it was . . . (READ CHOICES) 

1 Difficult

2 Fairly easy, or.......................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 32

3 Extremely easy? .................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 32

4 Don’t know or refused ........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 32

31. Would you please explain to me why you found the instructions difficult to 

understand? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 

1 Figures (pictures) unclear/hard to follow 

2 Written descriptions unclear/hard to follow 

3 Figures and written description didn’t seem to go together 

4 Had trouble understanding/following any instructions 

5 Has trouble understanding/following any instructions 

6 Received wrong instructions/replacement part(s) 

7 Other 

 31a. Specify: _______________________________________ 

8 No more apply 

9 Doesn’t know or refused 

121 
32. How easy was it to actually fix the child safety seat(s)? Would you say it was... 

(REPEAT CODES AS NECESSARY)

1 Difficult,

2 Fairly easy, or.............................................SKIP TO QUESTION 34

3 Extremely easy? ..........................................SKIP TO QUESTION 34

4 Don’t know or refused....................................SKIP TO QUESTION 34

33. Would you please tell me why you found it difficult to FIX the safety seat?

(SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Instructions were difficult to understand/follow 

2 Didn’t have tools required 

3 Difficult to reach part(s) requiring replacement 

4 Had trouble removing defective part(s) 

5 Had trouble installing replacement part(s) 

6 Has trouble making any mechanical repairs 

7 Received wrong instructions/replacement part(s) 

8 Other 

 33a. Specify: _______________________________________ 

9 No more apply 

10 Doesn’t know or refused 

34. O.K., so far we’ve talked about child safety seat(s) that you have used. Next I 

have some general questions about child safety seat registrations and recalls.

Generally speaking, how important do you think it is to register child safety 

seats? Would you say it is: (READ CHOICES) 

1 Not at all important, 

2 Somewhat important, 

3 Fairly important, 

4 Very important, or 

5 Extremely important?

6 No opinion or refused 

122 
35. How important do you think it is to recall unsafe child safety seats? (REPEAT

CODES AS NECESSARY)

1 Not at all important, 

2 Somewhat important, 

3 Fairly important. 

4 Very important, or 

5 Extremely important?

6 Don’t know or refused 

36. Manufacturers can use a number of different methods to inform people of safety 

seat recalls. I’m going to read a list of methods, and I’d like you to tell me which 

would be most effective if you needed to be informed about a recall. (READ LIST

AND CHECK ONE)

1 A letter from the manufacturer to safety seat owners who sent in the 

registration card, 

2 A television announcement 

3 A newspaper or magazine announcement 

4 An announcement on the internet, or 

5 A notice posted in retail stores? 

6 Other 

36a. Specify: ______________________________________________ 

7 No opinion or refused 

Organizations...Skip to 60 

* * * * 

37. Now I’d like to ask just a few questions about you and your family. This 

information is for statistical purposes only and will be kept confidential. RECORD

GENDER: 

1 Female 

2 Male 

3 Unable to determine 

38. What year were you born?

1 Will provide # 

2 Refuses 

 38a ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___| 

123 
39. How many children under the age of 13 live with you either full- or part-time?

1 Will provide # 

2 Refuses................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 51

 39a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___| 

40. What [is his or her age/are their ages]? 

1 Will provide

2 Refuses to provide.................................................................. SKIP TO QUESTION 51

 (1) (2)

 Years Months

41. Child 1 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

42. Child 2 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

43. Child 3 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

44. Child 4 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

45. Child 5 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

46. Child 6 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

47. Child 7 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

48. Child 8 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

49. Child 9 ..............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

(1) (2)

 Years Months

50. Child 10............................................................................................|___|___| |___|___| 

124 
51. By which of the following racial or ethnic groups do you typically identify 

yourself . . . 

1 African-American or Black‚ but not Hispanic 

2 Asian-American or Pacific Islander 

3 Caucasian or White‚ but not Hispanic 

4 Hispanic or Latino 

5 Native American or Alaska Native 

6 Other 

51a. Specify: ______________________________________________ 

7 Don’t know or refused 

52. Would you say you live in a primarily urban, suburban, or rural area?

1 Urban 

2 Suburban 

3 Rural 

4 Don’t know or refused 

53. What is your home zip code?

1 Will provide # 

 53a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 

2 Refuses 

 

54. What is the highest grade or year of schooling you’ve completed?

1 Less than high school graduate 

2 High school graduate/GED 

3 Some college

4 Associate degree 

5 Bachelors degree 

6 Masters degree 

7 Doctorate/professional degree 

9 Refuses to answer 

125 
55. What is your marital status? 

 1 Married or living as married,

2 Divorced or separated............................................................ SKIP TO QUESTION 57

3 Widowed, or.......................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 57 

4 Single, never been married? ................................................. SKIP TO QUESTION 57

5 Refuses to answer.................................................................. SKIP TO QUESTION 57

56. What is the highest grade or year of schooling that your spouse or partner has 

completed?

1 Less than high school graduate 

2 High school graduate/GED 

3 Some college

4 Associate degree 

5 Bachelors degree 

6 Masters degree 

7 Doctorate/professional degree 

9 Refuses to answer 

57. Approximately what is your total annual household income before taxes? Is it 

above or below $50‚000?

1 Above 

2 Below......................................................................................SKIP TO QUESTION 59

3 Don’t know or refused 

58. Is it:

1 At least $50‚000‚ but less than $60‚000 

2 At least $60‚000‚ but less then $70‚000 

3 More than $70‚000?

4 Don’t know or refused 

This concludes our survey. Thank you again for your time. 

59. Is it: 

1 Under $20‚000 

2 At least $20‚000‚ but less then $30‚000 

3 At least $30‚000‚ but less than $40‚000 

4 At least $40‚000‚ but less than $50‚000?

5 Don’t know or refused 

This concludes our survey. Thank you again for your time. 

126 
Now I’d like to ask just a few questions about your organization. 

 

60. What type of organization is this? Is it a... 

1 Private non-profit 

2 Private for-profit 

3 State government agency 

4 Local government agency 

5 or, Some other type of organization 

60a. Specify: _____________________________________________ 

6 Don’t know or refused 

61. Is the organization affiliated with or a part of a hospital?

1 Yes 

2 No 

3 Don’t know or refused 

62. Is the organization affiliated with or a part of a public health program?

 

1 Yes 

2 No 

3 Don’t know or refused 

63. Would you say the organization serves a primarily urban, suburban, or rural area?

 1 Urban 

2 Suburban 

3 Rural 

4 Don’t know or refused 

64. What is the organization’s zip code? 

1 Will provide # 

64a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 

2 Refuses 

65. Does your organization currently, or has it ever, operated a child safety seat 

loaner program? By a loaner program I mean a program that loans seats to 

families for a period of time, then the seats are returned back to the program.

 1 Yes 

2 No ......................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 71

3 Don’t know or refused ......................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 71

 

127 
66. Does the organization still operate a loaner program?

1 Yes 

2 No.......................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 71

3 Don’t know or refused ........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 71

67. How many years has the organization been providing this service?

1 Will provide # 

 67a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___| 

2 Refuses 

68. Approximately how many seats are owned by your program?

1 Will provide # 

68a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 

2 Refuses 

69. Approximately how many families participate in the program annually? 

1 Will provide # 

69a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 

2 Refuses 

70. What requirements must families fulfill to participate in the program? For 

example, must they meet income requirements, have a special needs child, be a 

resident of your city/county, or is there another requirement?

1 Low-income family 

2 Special needs child 

3 Resident of city/county 

4 No requirements 

5 Other: 

70a. Specify: 

__________________________________________________________ 

6 Don’t know or refused 

128 
71. Does your organization currently, or has it ever, operated a child safety seat 

giveaway program? By a giveaway program I mean you acquire child safety 

seats and provide them to families either at a reduced price or for free. 

1 Yes 

2 No.......................................................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 76

3 Don’t know or refused ........................................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 76 

72. Does the organization still operate a giveaway program?

1 Yes ........................................................................................ SKIP TO QUESTION 73

2 No 

3 Don’t know or refused 

This concludes our survey. Thank you again for your time. 

73. How many years has the organization been providing this service?

1 Will provide # 

73a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 

2 Refuses 

74. Approximately how many families participate in the program annually? 

1 Will provide # 

74a. ENTER NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 

2 Refuses 

75. What requirements must families fulfill to participate in the program? For 

example, must they meet income requirements, have a special needs child, be a 

residents of your city/county, or is there another requirement? 

1 Low-income family 

2 Special needs child 

3 Resident of city/county 

4 No requirements 

5 Other 

75a. Specify: 

__________________________________________________________ 

6 Don’t know or refused 

129 
76. (IF QUESTIONS 65 & 71 ARE “NO”) Why were you the registered owner of the 

seats?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ 

This concludes our survey. Thank you again for your time. 

130 
Appendix C: Additional Tables 

Supplementary information obtained from the consumer survey is presented here. These 

data do not show statistical significance. They do, however, further describe consumer 

behavior as it relates to child seat registration, and therefore are of some interest. 

Differences that are not significant, for example, point out program areas and 

demographic groups that do not need specific focus. Note that registration rates 

presented in this appendix were calculated based on consumers’ self-reports of 

registering as well as whether or not they received a registration card. This differs from 

the registration rates in the main portion of the report, which made specific assumptions 

for those who stated no card came with the seat but, for example, purchased it new after 

FMVSS 213 was amended to require the card. While this prevents registration rates 

discussed in this section from being directly comparable to those in the report, the 

relative size and standing of various demographic groups would not be expected to be 

influenced by this.

Section 3.2.5 presented the principal findings on ways in which child seats are obtained 

by consumers. Data reported here offer additional insight by examining registration 

rates, for various demographic factors, according to whether seats were purchased or

received as a gift. Exhibit C-1 shows the registration rates by age group and how the 

child seat was acquired for those respondents that received a registration card with the 

seat. Since so few respondents reported borrowing the seat from a friend or loaner 

program or selecting ‘Other,’ they will not be included in these tables of demographic 

data on how seats were acquired. 

The lowest registration rates are for those receiving the seat as a gift, particularly for 

those under age 21. This age group is one of the groups with the worst record for 

registering, and pinpointing it to those receiving the seat as a gift is useful information for 

potential programs aimed at increasing registration. 

Exhibit C-1: Registration Rates by Acquisition of Child Seat 

and Age of Respondent (Percent, Weighted) 

How Seat 

Acquired 

Under 

21 

21-30 31-40 41-50

Bought 75.0 77.3 79.8 80.6

Received as gift 50.0 62.3 75.5 87.4

Registration rates by race and Hispanic background are shown in Exhibit C-2. Note that 

Hispanics have a higher rate when the seat is received as a gift than when it is purchased. 

Blacks/African Americans have lower than average registration rates in general, but 

particularly when the seat is received a gift. 

131 
Exhibit C-2: Registration Rates by Acquisition of Child Seat 

and Race/Hispanic Background (Percent, Weighted) 

How Seat 

Acquired 

White (nonHispanic) Black/African 

American 

Hispanic 

(any race) 

Other 

Race(s) 

Bought 78.5 67.9 77.8 100.0

Received as gift 68.3 53.1 85.2 54.5

Exhibit C-3 shows the registration rates by education level. Those with a high school 

degree or less tend to have low registration rates, particularly when the seat is received as 

a gift. 

Exhibit C-3: Registration Rates by Acquisition of Child Seat 

and Education Level (Percent, Weighted) 

How Seat 

Acquired 

High School 

or Less 

Some 

College 

Associate/ 

BA Degree 

Advanced 

Degree 

Bought 67.1 80.0 74.7 91.7

Received as gift 58.8 70.5 70.8 72.1

Registration rates by how the seat was acquired and income level are shown in Exhibit C4. As shown earlier, in Chapter 3, those earning under $40,000 have the lowest 

registration rates. However, those in both the lowest and highest income groups have 

substantially lower than average rates when the child restraint is received as a gift. 

Exhibit C-4: Registration Rates by Acquisition of Child Seat 

and Income Level (Percent, Weighted) 

How Seat 

Acquired 

Under 

$40,000 

$40 to 

$70,000 

Over $70,000 

Bought 72.6 82.0 82.1

Received as gift 63.5 70.6 65.5

When the data are separated by age group of the child, 82.0% of those with children 

fewer than six months of age that bought their seat reported mailing in the registration 

card, while 77.5% of purchasers in the older group did. For those receiving the seat as a 

gift, 73.3% in the younger group reported mailing the card in, compared to 64.9% in the 

older group. Across groups, those with younger children are more likely to report 

returning the registration card. 

Exhibit 3-24, Section 3.2.5, presented general data on the type of store at which 

consumers purchased their child safety seats. Data presented here examine registration 

rates based on the type of store at which the seat was purchased and demographic 

information. This information on where seats are purchased, and the rates for each group 

purchasing at each type of store, can assist with programs targeted at specific 

demographic groups as well as suggest locations at which to contact them. 

132 
Exhibit C-5 presents the registration rates by the type of store from which a seat was 

purchased by the age group of the respondent. There were 236 respondents that 

purchased their child seat from a store. Because this table has a large number of possible 

cells, some have very few respondents. To avoid presenting data based on too few 

observations, cells with fewer than five respondents are not reported, and instead a dash 

is shown. Since only three respondents purchasing a seat in a store were over the age of 

50, they are not included in this table. Recall that the overall registration rate for those 

purchasing their seat at a store is 79.0%. 

Exhibit C-5: Registration Rates by Type of Store Seat Purchased 

and Age of Respondent (Percent, Weighted) 

Store where Purchased Under 

21 

21-30 31-40 41-50

Chain child specialty store - 78.5 76.4 78.9

Discount department store 79.9 75.3 90.1 -

Independent child specialty store - 72.9 73.4 -

Department store - 55.7 100.0 -

First to note is that the majority of those under age 21 purchased their seat at a discount 

department store, while those in the 41-50 age range purchased theirs at a chain child 

specialty store. Recall that those under 21 that purchased their seat had a good 

registration rate, but those receiving them as gifts lowered the average for the age group. 

For those that purchased their seat at a department store, those in the 21 to 30 age group 

had a very low registration rate, while those 31 to 40 purchasing there always returned

their cards. 

Registration rates by the type of store at which the seat was purchased by race and 

Hispanic background of the respondent are shown in Exhibit C-6. Again, several cells 

have fewer than five respondents and are not presented. The only cells with substantially 

lower than average registration rates for those that purchased their seat are Whites 

purchasing their seat at either a chain child specialty store or a department store. Whites 

were the only group to purchase their seats in relatively large numbers at either 

department stores or independent child specialty stores. Blacks/African Americans 

purchased their seats primarily at discount department stores. 

133 
Exhibit C-6: Registration Rates by Type of Store Seat Purchased 

and Race/Hispanic Background (Percent, Weighted) 

Store where Purchased White (nonHispanic) Black/ 

African Am 

Hispanic 

(any race) 

Other 

race(s)

Chain child specialty 

store 

75.9 - 78.9 100.0

Discount department 

store 

81.6 92.1 90.8 -

Independent child 

specialty store 

81.9 - - -

Department store 73.1 - - -

Education level and type of store at which the seat was purchased are presented in 

Exhibit C-7. Those with a high school degree or less had lower than average registration 

rates, particularly those that purchased their seat at a chain child specialty store. No other 

group stands out as having especially low registration rates. 

Exhibit C-7: Registration Rates by Type of Store Seat Purchased 

and Education Level (Percent, Weighted)

Store where Purchased High 

School 

or Less 

Some 

College 

Associate/ 

BA 

Degree 

Advanced 

Degree 

Chain child specialty 

Store 

62.2 77.8 75.3 89.4

Discount department 

Store 

72.3 87.5 79.0 97.2

Independent child 

specialty store 

- - - 100.0

Department store - - 80.1 -

Income level and type of store at which the seat was purchased are shown in Exhibit C-8. 

Those making under $40,000 who purchased their seat at a chain child specialty store 

stand out as having a particularly low rate of registration. 

134 
Exhibit C-8: Registration Rates by Type of Store Seat Purchased 

and Income Level (Percent, Weighted) 

Store where Purchased Under 

$40,000 

$40 to 

$70,000 

Over 

$70,000 

Chain child specialty 

store 

59.3 86.2 77.4

Discount department 

store 

79.0 86.2 86.8

Independent child 

specialty store 

- 76.5 -

Department store - 78.7 89.9

Overall, regardless of demographics, those purchasing their seat at either a discount 

department store or an independent child specialty store seemed to have average-to-better 

registration rates. Chain child specialty store purchasers had some substantially lower 

rates, particularly for the lowest education and income level respondents. Department 

store purchasers had the lowest overall rates of registration, with some groups having 

higher rates (e.g. the middle income groups) and some much lower (the 21 to 30 year 

olds). 

Section 3.2.8 discussed consumers’ opinions on the importance of registering child seats. 

In addition to consumer response overall, data were also examined by the age of the child 

and whether or not the registration card was returned. Although a sizeable proportion of 

respondents felt registration was important, there is nevertheless value in looking at how 

various groups responded. Registration rates by demographic groups by rating of 

importance are also presented. 

The importance of registering child seats according to the age group of the survey 

respondent is shown in Exhibit C-9. Since only four respondents were over the age of 50, 

they are not included in this table. Interestingly, less importance was associated with 

registering child seats as age increased. Only those under age 21 had a majority stating 

they believe it is extremely important. In addition, as age group increases, the likelihood 

of believing registering is either somewhat or not at all important (the lowest importance 

level choices) increases. This result is surprising in light of the fact that the younger 

consumers register their seats at a much lower rate than do older ones. 

Exhibit C-9: Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats 

by Age Group of Respondent (Percent, Weighted) 

Under 21 21-30 31-40 41-50

Extremely important 53.3 48.6 40.0 34.1

Very important 24.6 33.4 42.2 48.9

Fairly important 15.5 8.8 5.7 0.0

Somewhat important 0.0 6.9 9.0 8.5

Not at all important 6.6 2.3 3.0 8.5

135 
Exhibit C-10 presents the registration rate by how important the respondent felt it was to 

register child safety seats. When greater importance is placed on registration, a higher 

percentage does register the seat. 

Exhibit C-10: Registration Rate by Importance 

of Registering Child Safety Seats (Percent, Weighted) 

Extremely important 85.4 

Very important 61.1 

Fairly important 27.5 

Somewhat important 30.7 

Not at all important 3.2 

Exhibit C-11 shows the reported importance of registering child seats by race and 

Hispanic background. Those reporting ‘Other’ or multiple races seemed to place less

importance on registering, and those of Hispanic descent placed a very high importance 

on it. 

Exhibit C-11: Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats 

by Race/Hispanic Background (Percent, Weighted) 

White (nonHispanic) Black/ 

African Am 

Hispanic 

(any race) 

Other 

race(s) 

Extremely important 42.2 45.1 59.7 34.4

Very important 39.4 42.4 31.6 28.6

Fairly important 7.7 2.6 7.0 11.4

Somewhat important 7.2 7.5 1.8 22.8

Not at all important 3.5 2.6 0.0 2.9

Rates of registration by stated importance of registration and race/Hispanic background 

are presented in Exhibit C-12. Again, in general, the more importance placed on 

registration, the more likely the respondent was to have actually registered the child seat. 

Exhibit C-12: Registration Rates by Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats 

and Race/Hispanic Background (Percent, Weighted) 

White (nonHispanic) Black/ 

African Am 

Hispanic 

(any race) 

Other 

race(s)

Extremely important 95.6 88.7 85.3 83.1

Very important 74.9 52.8 100.0 100.0

Fairly important 42.2 0.0 25.5 0.0

Somewhat important 46.8 0.0 100.0 50.0

Not at all important 0.0 0.0 - 100.0 

136 
The stated importance of registering child seats by education level is shown in Exhibit 

C-13. All groups show a similar pattern to the overall pattern. 

Exhibit C-13: Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats 

by Education Level (Percent, Weighted) 

High 

School 

or Less 

Some 

College 

Associate/ 

BA 

Degree 

Advanced 

Degree 

Extremely important 44.2 44.7 39.2 47.8

Very important 31.7 40.5 43.2 35.9

Fairly important 12.4 2.7 6.1 9.1

Somewhat important 6.9 7.4 8.3 5.5

Not at all important 4.8 2.7 3.2 1.8

Exhibit C-14 shows the registration rates for each importance rating by education level. 

Although it looks unusual for one hundred percent of those with some college rating 

registration ‘Fairly Important’ to have sent in their card, cells have become rather sparse 

at this point. That particular cell contains just two respondents. Recall that the vast 

majority of respondents rated registering child seat to be ‘Very’ or ‘Extremely’ 

Important. Therefore, while the data show an interesting picture, and are worth looking 

at by various demographic groups, the overall trend is of interest, not any particular cell. 

Exhibit C-14: Registration Rates by Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats 

and Education Level (Percent, Weighted) 

High 

School 

or Less 

Some 

College 

Associate/ 

BA 

Degree 

Advanced 

Degree 

Extremely important 84.3 94.2 98.3 96.2

Very important 76.0 66.8 71.1 96.6

Fairly important 22.3 100.0 45.2 40.0

Somewhat important 29.9 45.7 38.4 66.9

Not at all important 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exhibit C-15 presents the rating of importance of registering by income level. Those in 

the highest income level had the lowest percent responding that registration is ‘Extremely 

Important.” However, this group has the largest proportion of the two highest importance 

groups combined, as well as the lowest proportion of those stating it is not important at 

all. 

137 
Exhibit C-15: Importance of Registering Child Safety Seats 

by Income Level (Percent, Weighted) 

Under 

$40,000 

$40 to 

$70,000 

Over 

$70,000 

Extremely important 45.6 46.5 38.1

Very important 37.2 36.2 46.0

Fairly important 8.9 8.1 5.3

Somewhat important 5.0 5.9 8.0

Not at all important 3.4 3.3 2.6

Exhibit C-16 shows registration rates by stated importance of registration and income 

level. The large majority of those stating that registration is extremely important actually 

do register, particularly for the middle-income group. As income increases, there is less 

drop-off in registering the seat as importance decreases. Overall, it appears that, as 

income increases, there may be slightly less of a feeling that registering is crucial, but the 

seat is registered anyway. A larger percent of those in the lower income groups feel it is 

extremely important, but there is less probability that the seat will be registered as that

feeling of importance drops. 

Exhibit C-16: Registration Rates by Importance of Registering 

Child Safety Seats and Income Level (Percent, Weighted) 

Under 

$40,000 

$40 to 

$70,000 

Over 

$70,000 

Extremely important 91.4 98.4 91.9

Very important 64.2 71.4 81.7

Fairly important 31.4 50.0 50.0

Somewhat important 11.3 65.6 55.7

Not at all important 0.0 0.0

Section 3.2.9 detailed information on the importance consumers place on recalling child 

seats, providing data by age of their child and whether or not they registered their child 

seat. Further data are presented here, examining rating of importance of recalling child 

seats by various demographic factors. Importance of recalling child seats by age of 

respondent is shown in Exhibit C-17. The younger age groups place slightly more 

importance on child seat recall. 

0.0

138 
Exhibit C-17: Importance of Recalling Unsafe Child Safety Seats 

by Age Group of Respondent (Percent, Weighted) 

Under 21 21-30 31-40 41-50

Extremely important 68.8 69.6 65.3 65.9

Very important 31.2 28.1 33.7 34.1

Fairly important 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.0

Somewhat important 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0

Not at all important 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exhibit C-18 shows importance of recall by race and Hispanic background. 

Black/African American consumers place a great deal of importance on the recall of child 

safety seats, with over 87 percent stating it is ‘Extremely Important’ and none ‘Fairly 

Important’ or lower. Only Whites (although a very small percent) rated recalling seats as 

low as ‘Somewhat Important.’ 

 

Exhibit C-18: Importance of Recalling Unsafe Child Safety Seats 

by Race/Hispanic Background (Percent, Weighted) 

White (nonHispanic) Black/ 

African Am 

Hispanic 

(any race) 

Other 

race(s)

Extremely 

important 

66.1 87.5 61.6 59.8

Very important 32.6 12.6 38.4 31.7

Fairly important 0.6 0.0 0.0 8.5

Somewhat 

important 

0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Not at all 

important 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

As education level increases, so does the percent of respondents feeling that recalling 

child seats is extremely important. Of those with a high school education or less, only 

about sixty percent felt it was extremely important. Data are shown in Exhibit C-19. 

Exhibit C-19: Importance of Recalling Unsafe Child Safety Seats 

by Education Level (Percent, Weighted) 

High 

School 

or Less 

Some 

College 

Associate/ 

BA 

Degree 

Advanced 

Degree 

Extremely important 59.5 62.5 66.7 76.3

Very important 38.5 34.9 33.0 21.9

Fairly important 2.0 2.0 0.3 0.0

Somewhat important 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.8

Not at all important 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

139 
Data on importance of recalling seats by income group are shown in Exhibit C-20. As 

income increases, the likelihood of believing child seat recalls are extremely important 

also increases, but not as sharply as for education level. On the other hand, only those 

making over $70,000 per year felt is was only somewhat important, although a very small 

percent. 

Exhibit C-20: Importance of Recalling Unsafe Child Safety Seats 

by Income Level (Percent, Weighted) 

Under 

$40,000 

$40 to 

$70,000 

Over 

$70,000 

Extremely important 66.7 68.3 69.5

Very important 33.3 30.6 28.8

Fairly important 0.0 1.1 0.0

Somewhat important 0.0 0.0 1.8

Not at all important 0.0 0.0 0.0

Information on consumers’ thoughts on effective methods of informing the public about 

recalls was presented in Section 3.2.10. It is worthwhile to examine this data in 

somewhat more detail, looking at the effectiveness that various demographic groups 

associate with the different methods. Exhibit C-21 shows the preferred method of recall 

notification by age of the respondent. Note that the youngest and the oldest groups have 

the highest percent selecting television announcements. While the chosen method across 

all groups is a letter from the manufacturer, the preference is strongest in the middle age 

groups, those between 21 and 50. Those age 41 to 50 have a higher percentage selecting 

notices in newspapers and magazines than do the other groups. 

Exhibit C-21: Most Effective Method of Informing Consumers of Recalls 

of Child Safety Seats by Age of Respondent (Percent, Weighted) 

Under 21 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-55

Letter from the manufacturer 47.2 53.6 59.5 68.9 52.5

Television announcement 36.7 23.6 22.7 25.9 31.8

Notice posted in retail store 0.0 6.0 2.9 0.0 0.0

Newspaper/magazine announcement 1.5 2.2 1.2 5.1 0.0

Announcement on the internet 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.0 0.0

Other 14.6 12.9 12.7 0.0 15.7

The most preferred method of informing about a recall by race and Hispanic background 

of respondent is presented in Exhibit C-22. Again, the most preferred method by each 

group is a letter from the manufacturer, although for Blacks/African Americans it is a 

narrow margin between the letter and a television announcement. This group also 

selected notices posted in retail stores much more often than did any other group. 

140 
Exhibit C-22: Most Effective Method of Informing Consumers of Recalls of Child 

Safety Seats by Race and Hispanic Background (Percent, Weighted) 

White (nonHispanic) Black/ 

African Am 

Hispanic 

(any race) 

Other 

race(s) 

Letter from the manufacturer 57.7 37.7 57.9 60.7

Television announcement 24.5 30.3 22.1 15.8

Notice posted in retail store 3.6 7.5 4.0 2.0

Newspaper/magazine announcement 1.7 0.0 4.0 2.0

Announcement on the internet 1.0 0.0 3.0 2.0

Other 11.6 24.4 9.1 17.6

Data on education level by most preferred method of informing consumers about a recall 

are shown in Exhibit C-23. Again, the most preferred method overall is the letter from

the manufacturer. However, for those with a high school education or less, a television 

announcement is a close second. 

Exhibit C-23: Most Effective Method of Informing Consumers of Recalls of Child 

Safety Seats by Education Level (Percent, Weighted) 

High School 

or Less 

Some 

College 

Associate/ 

BA Degree 

Advanced 

Degree 

Letter from the manufacturer 47.2 61.2 59.6 57.9

Television announcement 34.5 22.7 23.3 17.6

Notice posted in retail store 5.1 2.4 4.4 2.8

Newspaper/magazine announcement 3.8 0.0 1.5 1.9

Announcement on the internet 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.5

Other 8.1 13.7 9.9 19.4

Exhibit C-24 presents data on the most preferred method of informing by income level. 

All groups feel rather strongly that a letter from the manufacturer is the best method. As 

income level increases, the preference for the manufacturer’s letter over a television 

announcement increases. 

Exhibit C-24: Most Effective Method of Informing Consumers of Recalls of Child 

Safety Seats by Income Level (Percent, Weighted) 

Under 

$40,000 

$40 to 

$70,000 

Over 

$70,000 

Letter from the manufacturer 54.6 56.4 58.9

Television announcement 29.3 25.1 21.3

Notice posted in retail store 4.5 4.2 3.2

Newspaper/magazine announcement 1.6 1.1 2.5

Announcement on the internet 0.3 1.3 1.1

Other 9.7 11.9 13.1

141 
General demographic information on those consumers surveyed that were involved in a 

recall was presented in Section 4.3.1. Supplementary data are now presented. The 

marital status of respondents is presented in Exhibit C-25. 

Exhibit C-25: Marital Status of Respondents (Percent) 

Marital Status Recall 

Survey 

General 

Survey 

Married/living as married 82.0 87.6

Divorced/separated 0.8 1.7

Widowed 0.0 0.2

Single/never married 7.4 9.3

Refused to answer 9.8 1.1

Exhibit C-26 presents the ages of those who experienced a recall. The percents are of 

those with known age – eighteen additional respondents did not choose to reveal their 

age. 

Exhibit C-26: Age Groups of Adult Respondent (Percent) 

Age 

Group 

Recall 

Survey 

General 

Survey 

Under 21 1.9 6.9

21-30 16.3 42.0

31-40 73.1 44.1

41-50 7.7 5.4

51-55 1.0 1.6

A logistic regression was run on the age of the adult, using the actual ages rather than 

grouping them, to determine whether the age of the respondents in the recall group was 

different than for those in the group not experiencing a recall. As for the previous 

significance tests, unweighted data were used. The resulting chi-square of 0.7923, with a 

probability of 0.3734, shows that there is not a significant difference in the ages of the 

two groups. 

As in the General survey, consumers in the Recall survey were permitted to select

multiple responses for the reason(s) the card was returned. Only twenty respondents of 

the 122 total that had experienced a recall chose two selections, and none chose more. 

The percent of respondents selecting each option is reported (as was done for the General 

survey), so totals sum to more than 100%. 

Perhaps surprisingly, a smaller percentage of people in the Recall survey said the most 

important reason they returned the card was for recall notification, 88.7% compared to 

95.1% in the General survey (for those who had returned the card). A larger percentage 

than in the General survey, 26.4% compared to 15.3%, reported that the card had been 

returned to provide warranty protection. About the same percentage (2.8%) said they had 

142 
143 

returned the card because someone told them to. The larger group of respondents in the 

General survey reporting they had returned the card for recall notification rather than 

warranty protection may suggest that consumers have become more aware of the purpose 

of the registration card included with their child safety seat. 

None of those in the Recall survey bought their seat at a garage sale or on the internet. 

The remaining 26.9% that selected ‘other’ for where they had purchased the seat listed 

hospital (2), manufacturer, distributor, local company, a medical supply company, and 

the Easter Seal Society. Exhibit C-27 presents the type of store for those stating they 

purchased their seat at a store. 

Exhibit C-27: Type of Store Where Seat Purchased (Percent) 

Recall 

Occur 

General 

No Recall 

Chain child specialty store 29.1 48.8 

Discount department store 38.2 34.3 

Independent child specialty store 1.8 6.7 

Department store 5.5 5.3 

Other 0.0 4.2 

No answer 25.5 0.7 

As in the General survey, the majority of purchases were made in chain child specialty 

and discount department stores. 

Again, data presented in this section are not statistically significant. The additional 

information provided in describing the surveyed consumers is valuable nonetheless.