CONSUMER 

PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION

Awareness, Use, and 

Usefulness of 

SaferProducts.gov

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2013

GAO-13-306

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-306, a report to 

congressional committees 

March 2013

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Awareness, Use, and Usefulness of 

SaferProducts.gov

u

Why GAO Did This Study

In the wake of increased product 

recalls in 2007-2008, Congress passed 

the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). 

Among other things, CPSIA required 

CPSC to establish a database on the 

safety of consumer products that is 

publicly available, searchable, and 

accessible through the CPSC website. 

In response, CPSC launched 

SaferProducts.gov (http:// 

www.saferproducts.gov) in March 

2011, which has two main functions—

to provide (1) a mechanism for online 

reporting of product safety issues and 

(2) the ability to search for these issues 

or others, such as recalls. CPSIA also 

required GAO to study the general 

utility of the website. This report 

examines (1) CPSC’s efforts to inform 

the public about SaferProducts.gov, (2) 

who is using the website and to what 

extent, and (3) the extent to which 

consumers have found the website to 

be useful. To do this, GAO analyzed 

agency documents and data from 2011 

to 2012; interviewed CPSC officials, 

researchers, and consumer and 

industry groups; reviewed federal 

standards, guidance, and best 

practices for website usability; and 

conducted website usability tests with 

37 consumers in three locations. 

What GAO Recommends

CPSC should (1) establish and 

incorporate metrics to assess efforts to 

increase awareness and use of 

SaferProducts.gov, (2) look for costeffective ways of gathering additional 

data about site use, and (3) implement 

cost-effective usability improvements 

to the site. CPSC supported these 

recommendations. 

What GAO Found

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has used various approaches to 

inform the public about SaferProducts.gov, including using social media, public 

service announcements, and printed materials, and promoting the site during 

speeches and events. CPSC’s efforts to inform the public about SaferProducts.gov 

have been part of a larger effort to raise awareness about the agency as a whole. 

While CPSC has employed many key practices for consumer education planning, it 

has not established metrics for measuring the success of its efforts. Without such 

metrics, the agency cannot determine which efforts have had the most impact on 

increasing awareness and use of the site. 

While CPSC collects some data on the category of persons, such as consumers or 

health care professionals, who submit reports (one of the main functions of the site), 

it does not collect data about who is using the site to search for information (the other 

main function). In addition, to minimize the reporting burden on users, CPSC has not 

asked for demographic data about the users (such as their age, gender, or income 

level). Therefore, it was difficult for GAO to assess, as mandated by Congress, 

whether a broad range of the public has used the site. Moreover, without such data, 

CPSC has been limited in its ability to target its marketing and outreach efforts to 

increase use of the site. 

Many consumers in GAO’s usability tests thought the site generally was easy to use

and had helpful information, but identified areas for improvement. The consumers 

generally could perform basic searches and follow instructions to report an unsafe 

product, and although none were aware of the site before the tests, most said they 

would use the site again. However, some of the search functions posed challenges.

In addition, some consumers expressed concern about registering with the site and

said this might prevent them from completing a report. Other consumers were not 

clear about the site’s purpose, thinking it would focus on safe rather than unsafe 

products. By addressing the usability challenges GAO identified, CPSC could help 

users take full advantage of all the available features of SaferProducts.gov. 

Furthermore, cost-effective federal resources exist across the government to help 

agencies improve the usefulness of their sites. 

SaferProducts.gov Home Page 

View GAO-13-306. For more information, 

contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-

8678 or cackleya@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Letter 1 

Background 4

CPSC Has Used Various Approaches to Inform the Public about 

SaferProducts.gov, but Has Not Established Metrics to Assess Its 

Efforts 8

CPSC Collects Limited Data about the Use of SaferProducts.gov 12

Consumer Testing Showed SaferProducts.gov to Be Generally 

Useful, but Identified Areas for Improvement 22

Conclusions 30

Recommendations for Executive Action 31

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 32

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33

Appendix II GAO Script, Including Questions and Tasks, for Usability 

Testing with Consumers 36

Appendix III Comments from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission 42

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 43

Tables

Table 1: Types of Submitters of Incident Reports, for Reports 

Published from April 2011 through January 3, 2013 16

Table 2: Relationship between Self-Reported Consumer and Victim, 

for Incident Reports Published from April 2011 through 

January 3, 2013 17

Table 3: Relationship between Self-Reported Consumer and Victim 

for Those Specifying a Relationship, for Incident Reports 

Published from April 2011 through January 3, 2013 18

Table 4: Location of Reported Incident by Country, as of January 3, 

2013 19

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Figures

Figure 1: Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) 

Electronic Process for Publishing an Incident Report 

Submitted on SaferProducts.gov 7

Figure 2: Monthly Visits, from March 2011 through December 2012 13

Figure 3: Most Frequently Visited Pages Each Month, from March 

2011 through December 2012 14

Figure 4: Number of Incident Reports Received, from March 2011 

through December 2012 15

Figure 5: Total Number of Incident Reports Published by State of 

Incident, from April 2011 through January 3, 2013 20

Figure 6: Screenshot of Registration Page for Report Submission 

on SaferProducts.gov 25

Figure 7: Screenshot of SaferProducts.gov Home Page 29

Abbreviations

CPSRMS Consumer Product Safety Risk Management 

System

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

CPSIA Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

PSA public service announcement

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

March 11, 2013

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV

Chairman

The Honorable John Thune

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Fred Upton

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

A large number of children’s product recalls in 2007 and 2008 led to 

heightened scrutiny of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s 

(CPSC) regulation of consumer products and public access to product

safety information. In response to these concerns, Congress enacted the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) on August 14, 2008, 

to strengthen CPSC’s authority to enforce safety standards and provide 

greater public access to product safety information.1 CPSIA required 

CPSC to establish a publicly available, searchable database of consumer 

and other products and substances the Commission regulates that are 

reported to be unsafe.2

On March 11, 2011, CPSC launched the mandated database at 

SaferProducts.gov (http://www.saferproducts.gov). The website has two 

portals—one for consumers and one for businesses. For the consumer 

portal, website users can perform two main functions on the site. First, 

consumers and members of other statutorily defined groups can submit 

reports of harm or the risk of harm from products.3

 

1

Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (2008) (codified in scattered sections of Title 15 of 

the U.S. Code).

Second, consumers 

2

15 U.S.C. § 2055a. 

3

Although CPSIA uses the term “reports of harm,” in this report we refer to “incident 

reports.” 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

and others can search for information on products reported to be unsafe 

that they own or may wish to purchase. SaferProducts.gov also shows 

manufacturers’ comments alongside incident reports if the manufacturer 

requests their comments be published. The act also requires that GAO 

analyze the utility of the website, including an assessment of its use by 

consumers and efforts by CPSC to inform the public about the database.4

In this report, we examine (1) CPSC’s efforts to inform the public about 

SaferProducts.gov, (2) who has used SaferProducts.gov and to what 

extent, and (3) the extent to which consumers have found 

SaferProducts.gov to be useful.5

To address the first objective, we reviewed CPSC marketing materials 

and budget, evaluation, and planning documents, and interviewed CPSC 

officials to determine the status of the agency’s efforts for 

SaferProducts.gov. This included reviewing the targets of CPSC’s 

outreach, how the agency evaluated the outcomes of these efforts, and 

any future plans. We compared CPSC’s efforts with key practices for 

consumer education planning identified in a prior report and interviewed 

other entities (such as consumer groups) to determine what additional 

steps, if any, CPSC could take to better inform the public about 

SaferProducts.gov.6

 

4

Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 212. 

For context, we reviewed documentation and 

interviewed officials about CPSC’s strategies to increase overall public 

awareness of the agency. To address the second objective, we analyzed 

data for 2011 through 2012 on users who filed incident reports through 

various methods, including SaferProducts.gov, phone, e-mail, postal mail, 

and fax, and analyzed other data CPSC maintains to measure the 

amount of website use. To assess data reliability, we drew on our prior 

5

In the Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, 

Congress required us to report on data in CPSC’s safety information database. We issued 

a report in October 2011 that examined (1) the information required for submitting a report 

of harm to SaferProducts.gov, (2) the extent to which the information required for 

submitting a report of harm is sufficient to identify the product and to allow CPSC to review 

a manufacturer’s claim that a report of harm contains materially inaccurate information, 

and (3) the length of time CPSC takes to review and resolve manufacturers’ claims of 

material inaccuracy in a report of harm. GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

Action Needed to Strengthen Identification of Potentially Unsafe Products, GAO-12-30

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2011).

6

GAO, Digital Television Transition: Increased Federal Planning and Risk Management 

Could Further Facilitate the DTV Transition, GAO-08-43 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 

2007), p. 26.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

work assessing SaferProducts.gov and reviewed relevant documentation, 

performed manual tests to look for errors, and interviewed CPSC officials 

responsible for the data. We determined that, for the purposes of this 

report, the data were sufficiently reliable. We also interviewed CPSC 

officials about efforts to collect any demographic data—such as age, 

gender, and income—about users, and reviewed existing studies,

including those by consumer groups and a law firm, related to use of 

SaferProducts.gov.

To address the third objective, we conducted website usability tests with 

37 consumers in three locations—Washington, D.C., Dallas, Texas, and 

San Francisco, California—to obtain their views on how easy it was to 

use SaferProducts.gov and how helpful the information on the website 

was. We chose these locations for geographic dispersion and ease of 

testing. We followed the protocols and used the Washington, D.C., 

facilities of the General Services Administration (GSA) for our testing 

conducted through the First Fridays Usability Testing Program.7

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to March 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

At this 

location, we conducted three one-on-one tests with consumers whom 

GSA recruited. We asked consumers to complete usability tasks we 

developed and discuss their general experiences using the site. In the 

other two locations, we worked with a contractor to recruit prospective 

website testers having a mix of characteristics in terms of age, gender, 

education, and ethnicity. We conducted two separate focus groups (of 8-9 

consumers) in each of the other locations, asking them to complete 

specified usability tasks and discuss their experiences using the website. 

While the results of the tests are not generalizable to all U.S. consumers, 

they provided us with in-depth interactive feedback and detailed 

perspectives from a range of consumers about the usability challenges 

associated with SaferProducts.gov. We also analyzed other usability 

resources to determine key practices on how to make websites easy to 

use and helpful. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our 

objectives, scope, and methodology. Appendix II contains the script used 

in our website usability tests.

 

7

GSA’s testing program is free and focused exclusively on federal websites. According to 

GSA, it has tested more than 37 websites, including those of the Internal Revenue 

Service, Bureau of the Census, and Department of Transportation. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

CPSC was created in 1972 under the Consumer Product Safety Act to 

regulate certain consumer products and address those that pose an 

unreasonable risk of injury; assist consumers in evaluating the 

comparative safety of consumer products; and promote research and 

investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, 

injuries, and illnesses.8

As noted above, in 2011 CPSC made the CPSIA-mandated database 

available through the SaferProducts.gov website. Users of 

SaferProducts.gov can perform two main functions on the website. They 

can (1) submit a report describing the harm or risk of harm related to the 

use of consumer products, and (2) search for these reports, as well as 

recall notices and other safety information on products.

CPSC’s jurisdiction is broad, covering thousands 

of types of manufacturers and consumer products used in and around the 

home and in sports, recreation, and schools. CPSC does not have 

jurisdiction over some categories of products, including automobiles and 

other on-road vehicles, tires, boats, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, food, 

drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and pesticides. Other federal 

agencies—including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 

Coast Guard; Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives; 

Department of Agriculture; Food and Drug Administration; and 

Environmental Protection Agency—have jurisdiction over these products.

9

 

8

Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1207 (1972) (codified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-

2089).

SaferProducts.gov allows the public to review incident reports that 

previously were available only to CPSC unless requested under the 

Freedom of Information Act. The public also may view manufacturers’ 

comments on reports when manufacturers request that their comments 

9

Consumers and others previously were able to report safety problems or concerns about 

consumer products through CPSC’s toll-free hotline; the U.S. mail, or a form on CPSC’s 

website submitted through e-mail and they can continue to use these methods in lieu of 

submitting reports through SaferProducts.gov. CPSIA and CPSC define “harm” as injury, 

illness, or death or risk of injury, illness or death. 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(g); 16 C.F.R. § 

1102.6(b)(4).

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

be published. As required by statute, CPSC disclaims any responsibility 

to guarantee the accuracy of a report.10

The submitter of an incident report on SaferProducts.gov must fit into one 

of five categories: (1) consumers; (2) local, state, and federal government 

agencies; (3) health care professionals; (4) child service providers; and 

(5) public safety entities. CPSC regulations specify that “consumers” 

include, but not be limited to, users of consumer products, family 

members, relatives, parents, guardians, friends, attorneys, investigators, 

professional engineers, agents of a user of a consumer product, and 

observers of the consumer products being used.11

Once CPSC receives an incident report through SaferProducts.gov, it 

reviews each report to determine if the submitter included all the 

information required by CPSIA for publication in the public database.12

 

10Specifically, SaferProducts.gov includes the following disclaimer to provide notice to 

users as required by CPSIA: “CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or 

adequacy of the contents of the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database on SaferProducts.gov, particularly with respect to information submitted by 

people outside of CPSC.” See 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(b)(5). 

Reports that do not meet the minimum criteria for publication are 

reviewed by CPSC staff and saved for internal use, and CPSC is not 

1116 C.F.R. § 1102.10(a). Local, state, or federal agencies include, but are not limited to, 

local government agencies, school systems, social services, child protective services, 

state attorneys general, state agencies, and all executive and independent federal 

agencies as defined in Title 5 of the United States Code. Health care professionals 

include, but are not limited to, medical examiners, coroners, physicians, nurses, 

physicians’ assistants, hospitals, chiropractors, and acupuncturists. Child service 

providers include, but are not limited to, child care centers, child care providers, and 

prekindergarten schools. Public safety entities include, but are not limited to, police, fire, 

ambulance, emergency medical services, federal, state, and local law enforcement 

entities, and other public safety officials and professionals, including consumer advocates 

or individuals who work for nongovernmental organizations, consumer advocacy 

organizations, and trade associations, so long as they have a public safety purpose.

12CPSIA requires the following information when submitting a report of harm: (1) 

description of the consumer product sufficient to distinguish the product as a product or

component part regulated by CPSC; (2) identity of the manufacturer or private labeler by 

name; (3) description of the harm related to use of the consumer product; (4) approximate 

or actual date of the incident; (5) category of submitter; (6) submitter’s contact information; 

(7) submitter’s verification that the information contained therein is true and accurate; and 

(8) consent to publication of the report of harm. 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(b)(2)(B); C.F.R. § 

1102.10(d). Subject to §§ 1102.24 and 1102.26, CPSC will publish reports of harm 

containing all the required information.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

required to contact the submitters for further information.13

 

13According to CPSC officials, it will mail letters to submitters who did not include all of the 

information required under CPSIA if the submitters provided contact information and 

asked that the report be published on SaferProducts.gov. The letters describe the 

information missing from the report of harm, and officials explained that some submitters 

contact CPSC to add the missing information to the report. Although CPSC is not required 

to contact submitters for further information when submitters’ reports do not meet the 

minimum criteria for publication, CPSC is required to contact submitters whose reports do 

not contain the product model or serial number, to seek such information or, in the

alternative, a photograph of the product. However, publication of an incident report is not 

contingent on CPSC obtaining the model or serial number (or photograph). 15 U.S.C. § 

2055a(c)(5).

CPSC then 

transmits a copy to manufacturers, importers, and private labelers 

identified in the reports, to provide them with the opportunity to comment. 

Qualifying reports and manufacturer comments submitted for publication 

are then available on SaferProducts.gov (see fig. 1).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Figure 1: Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) Electronic Process for Publishing an Incident Report Submitted on 

SaferProducts.gov

a

The repository also contains reports where required fields of information are missing (reports stored 

and not published). 

CPSC’s public database, SaferProducts.gov, is a part of CPSC’s larger 

Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS), which 

was designed to replace CPSC’s historically segmented data systems 

with a unified information technology system. The updated system is 

designed to allow CPSC to study data from multiple sources in a 

centralized location to identify emerging consumer product safety 

hazards.14

SaferProducts.gov is one of five official public websites CPSC maintains. 

For example, SaferProducts.gov is separate from CPSC’s primary 

 

14We previously reported on how CPSC assesses consumer product risks. See GAO, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges in Responding to New 

Product Risks, GAO-13-150 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2012).
 

Page 8 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

website, CPSC.gov (http://www.cpsc.gov), which provides information on 

the agency and consumer product recalls, and also includes a link to 

SaferProducts.gov.15 While SaferProducts.gov also contains product 

recall information in addition to incident reports by consumers, the recall 

notices originate from CPSC.gov. Therefore, website users who click on a 

link for a recall notice on SaferProducts.gov leave the website and are 

automatically directed to CPSC.gov. CPSC also has a Twitter feed, 

@OnSafety, which it uses to disseminate product safety information.

CPSC’s efforts to promote SaferProducts.gov formed part of a larger 

effort to increase the public’s awareness of the agency. CPSC has taken 

a variety of approaches to inform the public about SaferProducts.gov, 

many of which are consistent with key practices for consumer education 

planning. However, CPSC has not established metrics for its efforts. As a 

result, the agency does not know which of its efforts have had the most 

impact on increasing awareness and use of SaferProducts.gov.

CPSC’s efforts to inform the public about SaferProducts.gov have been 

part of a larger effort to increase the public’s awareness of the agency. 

According to CPSC officials, certain segments of the public may not be 

aware of the agency or its mission in product safety, much less be aware 

of SaferProducts.gov. Likewise, roughly one-third of the 37 consumers 

who participated in our website usability tests were aware of CPSC or its 

mission. To promote awareness of CPSC, officials have conducted public 

information campaigns related to various product safety hazards such as 

fire hazards and those involving children’s products, issued press 

releases about product recalls, and used social media.16

 

15CPSC also maintains PoolSafely.gov, Recalls.gov, and ATVsafety.gov, which are 

dedicated to pool safety, government recalls, and the safety of all-terrain vehicles, 

respectively.

Officials said 

16CPSC officials conduct a variety of public information campaigns. They use different 

media and work with various partners such as schools and the Neighborhood Safety 

Network—comprising hospitals, day care centers, fire stations, and parent organizations

among others—to inform the public about hazardous consumer products.

CPSC Has Used 

Various Approaches 

to Inform the Public 

about 

SaferProducts.gov, 

but Has Not 

Established Metrics to 

Assess Its Efforts

Outreach about 

SaferProducts.gov Has 

Been Part of an Effort to 

Increase Awareness of 

CPSC 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

that media stories promoting the use of SaferProducts.gov have had the 

benefit of promoting CPSC as a resource not only for information about 

product recalls (for which the agency is most commonly known), but also 

as a place where consumers can raise concerns about the safety of 

consumer products.

In addition to the outreach efforts noted above, CPSC has planned 

initiatives to assess the public’s awareness of the agency as a whole. In 

fiscal year 2011, CPSC’s Office of Communications received funds to 

award a contract to plan and conduct field surveys to assess consumer 

awareness of the agency. CPSC and a contractor are developing the 

survey tool. These surveys are to cover such areas as the public’s 

knowledge and awareness of the safety issues for which CPSC is 

responsible, how the agency’s work affects consumers, and how the 

public responds to product recalls and other safety hazards that CPSC 

communicates. CPSC officials told us that they plan to administer the 

survey in 2013, but have been awaiting approval of the survey from the 

Office of Management and Budget. CPSC also recently redesigned its 

main website, CPSC.gov, based on feedback from the public. According 

to CPSC officials, this redesign allowed the agency to provide a more 

visible link to SaferProducts.gov.17

As it has for publicizing the agency, CPSC has used a variety of 

approaches to inform the public about SaferProducts.gov, including the 

use of social and other media. Before launching SaferProducts.gov, 

CPSC hosted a web conference on January 11, 2011, to inform 

interested stakeholders such as consumer groups and the public about 

the site’s search function and the information required to submit an 

incident report.18

 

17CPSC launched its redesigned website on January 28, 2013. 

Around the time it launched SaferProducts.gov in March 

2011, CPSC promoted the new website through print and other media. 

According to CPSC officials, the agency’s promotional strategy 

emphasized both the public’s ability to search SaferProducts.gov for 

reports and submit such reports. In addition, near the 1-year anniversary 

of SaferProducts.gov, CPSC launched three public service 

18CPSC held a second webinar on January 20, 2011, which focused on business use of 

the site and included demonstrations of the form and process for filing an incident report, 

the search function of the site, and manufacturer registration and comment features. 

CPSC Has Used a Variety 

of Approaches to Inform 

the Public about 

SaferProducts.gov 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

announcements (PSAs) about SaferProducts.gov, sending these PSAs to 

local and national media and making them available on online media 

channels, such as YouTube (http://www.youtube.com). According to 

CPSC officials, the agency has a contract with a video production 

company to produce and distribute the videos. CPSC officials said that 

the PSAs have been among the 10 most-viewed videos on CPSC’s 

YouTube channel. They added that it was difficult to attract extensive 

television coverage or the best airtime slots given CPSC’s PSA budget of 

about $50,000 for fiscal year 2012. Further, the officials said that PSAs 

can cost from $700,000 to $1 million to produce, distribute, and air during 

prime viewing or listening times.

The agency also has distributed informational materials to target 

audiences at conferences and community events; referenced the site in 

speeches and presentations by the Chairman, Commissioners, and staff; 

and held press interviews to promote the site, according to CPSC 

officials. For example, CPSC developed a series of brochures, including 

some tailored to specific professional sectors, such as health care, child 

care, public safety, and government. CPSC officials noted that they have 

mentioned the site at conferences, particularly those aimed at minority 

populations and professional groups. The agency also has made a data 

feed of the incident reports available to third-party software developers to 

create mobile applications and provided information for developers in a 

frequently asked questions page on SaferProducts.gov.

In conducting its public information efforts, CPSC has employed a 

number of strategies consistent with key practices for consumer 

education planning that we identified in a prior report.19

 

19

For example, 

CPSC has worked with stakeholders such as consumer groups (a key 

practice) to promote SaferProducts.gov, and used a variety of media 

(another key practice) to promote the site. CPSC also has identified 

“messengers” such as consumer groups and state attorneys general to 

assist with publicity, and identified the resources needed for publicity 

(other key practices).

GAO-08-43. The key practices are (1) define goals and objectives; (2) analyze the 

situation (such as market conditions); (3) identify stakeholders; (4) identify resources; (5) 

research target audiences; (6) develop consistent, clear messages; (7) identify credible 

messenger(s); design media mix; and (8) establish metrics to measure success.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Most of the consumer product safety experts we interviewed from nine

groups representing consumers, researchers, and various industries 

stated that CPSC has been taking appropriate measures to promote the 

site. However, some also suggested that CPSC could conduct more 

targeted outreach to other professional groups, such as those in health 

care, and other populations, such as parents.

While CPSC has employed many of the key practices for consumer 

education planning as described previously, it has not employed one of 

the key practices that could further improve the efficacy of its outreach for 

SaferProducts.gov. Specifically, CPSC has not established metrics, such 

as process and outcome metrics, to measure the success of its outreach 

efforts.20

CPSC has not established metrics to evaluate its outreach efforts for 

SaferProducts.gov because the agency has been focused on increasing 

awareness of CPSC and improving the functionality of CPSC.gov. CPSC 

officials said that in comparison with SaferProducts.gov, CPSC.gov 

received almost 10 times as many visits each month. Officials have said 

they may focus on evaluating outreach efforts for SaferProducts.gov in 

the future. However, without current metrics to assess the efficacy of its 

outreach for SaferProducts.gov, CPSC will not know which of its efforts—

for instance, promoting the site at conferences and using PSAs—have 

In its 2013 performance budget request, as part of an effort to 

increase awareness of the agency, CPSC has a goal for the number of 

visits to CPSC.gov. However, CPSC does not have a similar goal for the 

number of visits to SaferProducts.gov, although it collects such data (as 

discussed in the next section of this report). Similarly, CPSC has not 

determined whether its efforts to publicize SaferProducts.gov at 

conferences or through PSAs have led to increased use of 

SaferProducts.gov after the events. CPSC also has not incorporated tools 

or features on the site (such as a drop-down menu on the homepage that 

would ask users to select an option such as “conferences,” “PSAs,” 

“printed materials,” or “media”) to identify how the user learned about and 

arrived at the site. The information generated by such tools also may 

provide CPSC with ideas for additional metrics to measure awareness 

and use of the site.

 

20Process metrics ensure the quality, quantity, and timeliness of outreach work. Outcome 

metrics evaluate how well the campaign influenced the attitudes and behaviors of the 

target audience(s). See GAO-08-43. 

CPSC Has Not Established 

Metrics to Evaluate Its 

Outreach on 

SaferProducts.gov 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

had the most impact on increasing awareness and use of 

SaferProducts.gov, or be able to best target its limited resources to 

increase use of the site. 

CPSC collects limited data about the use of SaferProducts.gov. To track 

use, CPSC collects data on the number of visitors, most frequently visited 

pages, and number of reports received, among other metrics. CPSC also 

collects some data about the category of person who is submitting a 

report. However, CPSC does not collect any data about who is using the 

site to search for information. In particular, CPSC has not sought to 

collect demographic data, such as age, gender, or income. In mandating 

this report, Congress required us to assess whether a broad range of the 

public uses the site. However, CPSC’s limited data collection related to 

use of the site made it difficult to conduct such an assessment.

According to CPSC officials, the agency’s primary measure of the extent 

of use of SaferProducts.gov is the number of visitors each month. CPSC 

collects these data through web analytics software. According to CPSC’s 

data, visits to SaferProducts.gov exceeded 100,000 each month since 

June 2011, a few months after the launch of the site (see fig. 2), peaking 

at about 238,000 in November 2012.21

 

21CPSC defines a visit as a series of actions, beginning when a visitor views the first page 

and ending when the visitor leaves the site or remains idle for more than 30 minutes. 

CPSC officials have not been able 

to identify the reasons for the increase in visits. 

CPSC Collects 

Limited Data about 

the Use of 

SaferProducts.gov 

Website Use Remained 

Relatively Constant, with 

Searches and Submission 

of Reports Constituting 

Frequent Uses 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Figure 2: Monthly Visits, from March 2011 through December 2012

CPSC also collects data on the most frequently visited pages each month 

(see fig. 3). These data show that users frequently used the site to search 

for information—for example, to search for recalled products or incident 

reports submitted by other users of the site. 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Figure 3: Most Frequently Visited Pages Each Month, from March 2011 through 

December 2012

a

CPSC also collects data on the number of reports received each month 

through SaferProducts.gov, as well as by phone, e-mail, postal mail, and 

fax. These data show that users submitted more than 1,000 reports from 

all sources each month from March 2011 through December 2012 (see 

fig. 4). 

According to CPSC, this page is for streaming file content, such as documents, from its server to its 

browser. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Figure 4: Number of Incident Reports Received, from March 2011 through December 2012
 

Page 16 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

CPSC collects some data about the categories of persons using 

SaferProducts.gov to submit incident reports but does not collect 

additional data such as age, gender, or income level of the submitters or 

others who use the site to search for information. When completing a 

report, CPSC requires submitters to state whether they are consumers, 

represent a government agency, or are health care or other professionals, 

among other categories of user. As shown in table 1, our analysis of more 

than 12,000 reports posted on SaferProducts.gov as of January 2013 

found that most report submitters—about 97 percent—identified 

themselves as consumers, results consistent with our prior reporting.22

Table 1: Types of Submitters of Incident Reports, for Reports Published from April 

2011 through January 3, 2013 

As 

stated previously, “consumers” include, but are not limited to, users of 

consumer products, family members, relatives, friends, attorneys, 

investigators, and others. Representatives of government agencies and 

public safety entities, as well as health care professionals, child service 

providers, and medical examiners and coroners also submitted reports.

Submitter Number Percent of total a

Consumer

b

11,696 97.22%

Federal government agency 11 0.09

State government agency 34 0.28

Local government agency 71 0.59

Child service provider 29 0.24

Health care professional 63 0.52

Medical examiner and coroner 19 0.16

Public safety entity 107 0.89

Total 12,030 100.0%

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC data on SaferProducts.gov.

Note: CPSC provides notice on SaferProducts.gov, as required by statute, that it does not guarantee 

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents on SaferProducts.gov, including incident 

reports.

a

These include reports submitted through SaferProducts.gov as well as by phone, postal mail, e-mail, 

and fax. 

b

Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.

 

22GAO-12-30. 

CPSC Collects Some 

Information on Users Who 

Submit Reports, but Has 

Collected Little 

Information on Other 

Users 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

CPSC also asks report submitters to state their relationship to the victim 

of the incident (such as self, parent, or spouse). As shown in table 2, of 

those who identified themselves as consumers, most identified 

themselves as the victims of an incident. However, many submitters did 

not specify a relationship. 

Table 2: Relationship between Self-Reported Consumer and Victim, for Incident 

Reports Published from April 2011 through January 3, 2013

Victim Number

Self 4,463

Spouse 603

Child 1,867

Parent 108

Other relative 196

Client, patient, student, etc. 58 a

Friend, neighbor, co-worker 78

No relationship 33

Unspecified 4,290

Total 11,696

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC data on SaferProducts.gov.

Note: CPSC provides notice on SaferProducts.gov, as required by statute, that it does not guarantee 

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents on SaferProducts.gov, including incident 

reports.

a

According to CPSC, “etc.” refers to professional relationships similar to a client, patient, or student. 

Of those who did specify a relationship to the victim, 4,463, or 60 percent, 

reported that they were the victims, and 1,867, or 25 percent, reported 

that their child was the victim (see table 3).
 

Page 18 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Table 3: Relationship between Self-Reported Consumer and Victim for Those 

Specifying a Relationship, for Incident Reports Published from April 2011 through 

January 3, 2013

Victim Number a Percent

Self 4,463 60.26%

Spouse 603 8.14

Child 1,867 25.21

Parent 108 1.46

Other relative 196 2.65

Client, patient, student, etc. 58 b 0.78

Friend, neighbor, co-worker 78 1.05

No relationship 33 0.45

Total 7,406 100.0%

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC data on SaferProducts.gov.

Note: CPSC provides notice on SaferProducts.gov, as required by statute, that it does not guarantee 

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents on SaferProducts.gov, including incident 

reports.

a

4,290 consumers did not specify their relationship to the victim. 

b

According to CPSC, “etc.” refers to professional relationships similar to a client, patient, or student.

CPSC asks that submitters specify the location of the reported incident, 

including the country and state. Most submitters providing this 

information—about 90 percent—reported that the incident took place in 

the United States (see table 4). Submitters also reported that incidents 

took place in other countries or did not specify where the incident took 

place.23

 

23In addition, CPSC requires that submitters provide contact information, including name, 

address, city, and state so that the agency can follow up with the submitter if CPSC has

questions about the report. 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Table 4: Location of Reported Incident by Country, as of January 3, 2013

Location Number Percent

United States of America 10,863 a 90.30%

Canada 84 b 0.70

Other countries 36 c 0.30

Unspecified 1,047 8.70

Total 12,030 100.0.%

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC data on SaferProducts.gov.

Note: CPSC provides notice on SaferProducts.gov, as required by statute, that it does not guarantee 

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents on SaferProducts.gov, including incident 

reports.

a

The United States of America category consists of reports from the 50 states (10,822), District of 

Columbia (33), Guam (1), Puerto Rico (6), and Virgin Islands (1).

b

Locations cited were Canada (75), British Columbia (1), Ontario (5), Quebec (1), and Saskatchewan 

(2).

c

The reports were from Australia (2), Austria (1), Belgium (1), Bermuda (1), Chile (1), China (1), 

Columbia (2), France (1), Germany (6), Italy (3), Jamaica (1), Japan (1), Malaysia (1), Mexico (2), 

New Zealand (2), Papua New Guinea (1), Philippines (1), Singapore (1), Sweden (1), Thailand (1), 

United Kingdom (4), and Uruguay (1).

In addition, states with the highest population—such as California, Texas, 

New York, Florida, and Illinois—had the most reported incidents (see fig. 

5).
 

Page 20 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Figure 5: Total Number of Incident Reports Published by State of Incident, from 

April 2011 through January 3, 2013

Note: CPSC provides notice on SaferProducts.gov, as required by statute, that it does not guarantee 

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents on SaferProducts.gov, including incident 

reports. As of January 2013, there were more than 12,000 incident reports published on 

SaferProducts.gov. Of these, 1,216 were for incidents in which the state of the incident was not 

specified or specified as “United States.” Forty-one incidents were reported to have occurred in the 

District of Columbia or a U.S. territory, and 120 incidents were reported to have occurred outside the 

United States.

Beyond these data, CPSC does not request or obtain additional details 

about the users of SaferProducts.gov. According to CPSC officials, the 

agency also cannot distinguish new users from returning users because 

CPSC’s web analytics software has not been configured with “cookies” to 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

capture these data.24 Officials have cited resource and privacy concerns 

as reasons for not collecting these data, although they said they have 

been considering using cookies in the future. In addition, CPSC does not 

collect more specific demographic information such as age, gender, or 

income level from the submitters of reports or other site users, citing an 

interest in minimizing the reporting burden on users. As an example, 

CPSC has not requested that site users voluntarily provide this 

information during the report submission process or after submitting a 

report. Congress required us to assess whether a broad range of the 

public uses SaferProducts.gov, but CPSC’s limited data collection made it 

difficult to conduct such an assessment. In addition, standards for internal 

control in the federal government state that agencies should have timely, 

relevant information for management decision-making purposes.25 As a 

result of its limited data collection about users of the site, CPSC has been 

limited in its ability to target its marketing and outreach efforts on specific 

groups, populations, or areas to achieve the goal of increasing use of the 

site.

 

24A cookie is a short string of text that is sent from a web server to a web browser when 

the browser accesses a web page. The use of cookies allows the server to recognize 

returning users, track online purchases, or maintain and serve customized web pages. 

25GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

As discussed earlier in this report, our website usability tests focused on 

asking consumers in our testing sessions to judge if SaferProducts.gov 

was easy to use. We had the consumers perform various tasks (such as 

searching for recalled products and submitting mock incident reports) and 

asked for opinions about the site’s usefulness. A moderator facilitated the 

sessions and we elicited feedback from participants. In addition, a GSA 

official with expertise in website usability assessed SaferProducts.gov, 

and another GSA official reviewed the site for website accessibility.26

Many consumers in our testing sessions generally found 

SaferProducts.gov easy to use, but they encountered difficulties with 

certain aspects of the two main functions: searching for information and 

submitting incident reports.27

In conducting the search tasks, consumers generally were able to find 

recalled products using basic key word searches. But some search 

functions, including those that required more complicated searches such 

Of the 37 consumers who participated in our 

testing sessions, 20 found SaferProducts.gov easy to use as indicated by 

their responses to a questionnaire we administered following each test 

session. For example, almost all the consumers were easily able to 

determine what initial steps to take to search for or report a product that 

may be unsafe. In addition, the expert evaluator reviewing the site at our 

request described the site as clean and easy to navigate.

 

26According to GSA, “web accessibility” is ensuring that people with any disability type—

including motor, auditory, cognitive, seizure/neurological, and visual impairments—are 

able to use web content, and ensuring that content is perceivable, operable, 

understandable, and robust. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that 

members of the public with disabilities have access to and use of information and data 

from federal agencies that is comparable to the access of those without disabilities. See

29 U.S.C. § 794d. In GSA’s website accessibility review, the official identified some helpful 

features of the site and a few areas for improvement, including enhancing some aspects 

of the site’s navigation, recoding the search and submission forms, and adding alternative 

text for screen readers and Braille display users. 

27We have used the term “usability” to encompass the concepts of ease of use and 

usefulness or utility. We reviewed various website usability resources and criteria to 

understand key practices for making websites easy to use and helpful. For instance, at 

usability.gov, the federal government has published criteria to assess a website’s usability 

and issued guidance and best practices for designing federal websites. Usability criteria 

include ease of navigation, readability, and having a clear statement of purpose on the 

site’s home page.

Consumer Testing 

Showed 

SaferProducts.gov to 

Be Generally Useful, 

but Identified Areas 

for Improvement

Consumers Said the Site 

Was Easy to Use, but 

Noted a Few Search 

Functions and a

Registration Page as 

Problematic
 

Page 23 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

as use of an advanced search function to narrow results, posed 

challenges. For example, in one testing session, no consumers were able 

to complete a task that required them to narrow their search by injury, 

time period, and location. In another session, the calendar function, which 

filters the results by time period, posed particular challenges. Five of the 

eight consumers in that session experienced difficulties in having to enter 

and, when seeking to make one change, re-enter all the dates to focus 

their search on products recalled within a particular time period. The 

expert evaluator from GSA experienced similar challenges in using the 

calendar function. 

In addition, when asked to search for and compare safety information for 

two products—one for which there were search results and one for which 

there were none—almost all the testers had difficulty interpreting the lack 

of search results for the latter product. For example, while some testers 

assumed that a search for a product that produced no results indicated 

that the product was safe, others did not make this presumption. In our 

testing sessions, most consumers were not sure which product to 

purchase based on their searches and roughly a quarter indicated that 

they would leave SaferProducts.gov to search other websites if they 

found no results on SaferProducts.gov. In contrast to SaferProducts.gov, 

other websites inform users of a possibly incorrect search term, such as a 

typographical error, which helps users interpret the results of their 

searches and identify potential errors.

During the usability tests, consumers experienced fewer challenges using 

the reporting function than the search function. To submit an incident 

report, consumers must enter information on a series of pages that 

include a combination of required and optional fields. During our testing, 

consumers found the instructions for submitting a report to be generally 

clear. For example, almost all the testers thought the instructions for 

submitting information about the incident, product, and victims were clear. 

However, 15 of the 37 consumers in our test sessions expressed concern 

about apparently needing to register before submitting a report and 

generally did not notice that they could continue without registering (see 

fig. 6). By registering on SaferProducts.gov, site users can save their 

reports to complete at a later time and receive updates on the status of 

reports. When reaching the registration page, over a third of the 

consumers in our focus group sessions said that they would not be 

inclined to register. In one session, seven of nine consumers said they 

would not be inclined to register and thought that having to register was a 

deterrent to completing a report. In another session, none of the 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

participants noticed the option to skip registration. Some of those who 

noticed that they could skip registration emphasized that the option 

should be more prominent—for example, placed alongside the 

registration box rather than below it where it might not be immediately 

visible. Likewise, as an issue of website usability, the expert evaluator 

from GSA reviewing the site on our behalf noted that the “continue 

without registering” option was not prominent enough and stated that 

registration may deter users from continuing the report submission 

process.
 

Page 25 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Figure 6: Screenshot of Registration Page for Report Submission on SaferProducts.gov

Note: CPSC, “SaferProducts.gov” (Bethesda, Md.), accessed February 26, 2013, 

https://www.saferproducts.gov/CPSRMSPublic/Incidents/IncidentReportingRegistration.aspx?Affiliatio

n=2&ProductCategory=3&PCode=&UserProduct=. 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

In addition, some consumers in our testing sessions said that the 

reporting pages contained too many questions and described the 

submission process as cumbersome, particularly for busy individuals 

such as parents.28

When CPSC first developed SaferProducts.gov, the agency conducted 

three focus groups—one with consumers and one with professionals—to 

test the site and assess users’ experience with it.

To address this, one consumer suggested grouping all 

of the required fields on one page. The expert evaluator from GSA also 

suggested that all the questions in the reporting process should be 

reviewed to determine if each was necessary.

29

A number of resources across the federal government are available to 

help agencies in making their websites more usable. For example, as 

cited previously, GSA’s First Fridays Usability Testing Program is 

designed to teach agency officials how to find and fix usability problems 

at no cost to the agency. The program’s services are (1) formal tests, (2) 

CPSC’s focus group 

testing only addressed the incident reporting function, not the search 

function, and focused on (1) awareness of how and where to submit a 

safety complaint and (2) general reactions to the site. CPSC has not 

conducted additional usability testing since launching SaferProducts.gov 

in March 2011. As mentioned previously, CPSC officials have said that 

issues such as assessing the level of awareness of CPSC and 

redesigning CPSC.gov were higher priorities than assessing and 

improving SaferProducts.gov.

 

28As stated in the background section of this report, submitters must include the following 

when submitting a report: (1) description of the product; (2) identity of the manufacturer or 

private labeler by name; (3) description of the harm related to use of the product; (4) 

approximate or actual date of the incident; (5) category of submitter (such as consumer, 

government agency official, or public official); (6) submitter’s contact information; (7) 

submitter’s verification that the information contained therein is true and accurate; and (8) 

consent to publication of the report of harm. 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(b)(2)(B); C.F.R. § 

1102.10(d). Subject to §§ 1102.24 and 1102.26. CPSC will publish reports of harm 

containing all the required information.

29CPSC conducted these focus groups in July and August 2010. The focus groups 

comprised of professionals included individuals who might use the site in their 

professional capacity and included a cross-section of health professional, child care 

providers, public safety officials, and government officials. 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

quick tests, (3) mobile tests, (4) observation, and (5) expert evaluation.30

Because of the usability issues in the areas we identified, consumers may 

not take advantage of all the features of SaferProducts.gov, and 

consumers may be dissuaded from completing and submitting incident 

reports. As a result, CPSC may not be obtaining all possible information 

from consumers that can help inform its safety assessments and other 

regulatory efforts.

GSA also offers DigitalGov University, which includes courses in web 

design and usability best practices. In addition, the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) operates two usability labs, both of which are 

free of charge to other federal agencies, to evaluate websites to ensure 

that they are easy-to-use and useful. Furthermore, GSA and HHS 

maintain HowTo.gov and Usability.gov, respectively, to provide guidance 

and resources to help agencies create websites that are usable, useful, 

and accessible.

None of the consumers in our test sessions previously had heard of 

SaferProducts.gov, although a few were familiar with CPSC as an agency 

involved in recalling certain products. In addition, 5 of the 37 consumers 

who participated in our tests said that the purpose of SaferProducts.gov 

was not clear based on its name and the initial information on the home 

page. In our testing sessions, roughly a third of the consumers 

commented that the name of the website—SaferProducts.gov—and the 

home page did not accurately convey what consumers could and could 

not do on the site. For example, when asked about their impressions of 

SaferProducts.gov, over a quarter of the testers thought that they would 

find information about safe products, such as a list of products that meet 

certain standards or a rating of products. These consumers did not 

appear to notice information on the home page indicating that they would 

 

30Formal tests are day-long tests of a live or staged website, which include recruiting three 

test participants and providing tasks for them to accomplish. Observers are located in a 

separate room where they monitor the tests and take notes. During quick tests, paper 

printouts of web pages are distributed to a large group of people for feedback, usually at 

random and in a public space. Mobile tests consist of tests of sites on smartphones and 

mobile applications. User behavior is recorded by a camera focusing on the mobile device 

and the hands of the user. Observation involves other staff watching GSA officials conduct 

usability tests of sites, either in person at GSA or remotely. Expert evaluation includes 

assessing a site for usability categories including navigation, identity, accessibility, content 

and design, and preparing an expert report. 

Consumers Initially Were 

Not Aware of 

SaferProducts.gov and 

Thought the Site’s Purpose 

Was Unclear, but Found 

the Site Generally Useful 

after Using It
 

Page 28 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

only find information on unsafe products (see fig. 7). In our testing 

sessions, several consumers commented that the website would be more 

aptly named UnsafeProducts.gov. In addition, during our one-on-one 

testing sessions in Washington, D.C., two of the testers had difficulty 

distinguishing between recall notices and incident reports, which serve 

different purposes.31

 

31Different parties also write each document, with CPSC writing recall notices and 

consumers and other users of SaferProducts.gov, such as health care professionals, 

writing incident reports. 

Likewise, although the expert evaluator from GSA 

was able to obtain a general sense of the purpose of the site, he noted 

that a tagline (brief text that gives users an immediate idea of what the 

site does) would help reinforce the site’s purpose.
 

Page 29 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Figure 7: Screenshot of SaferProducts.gov Home Page

Note: CPSC, “SaferProducts.gov” (Bethesda, Md.), accessed February 26, 2013, 

http://www.saferproducts.gov. 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

In one testing session, a few consumers also said that it was not apparent 

from looking at the home page that CPSC did not regulate certain 

categories of products, such as automobiles and medications, although 

more than half of the consumers in our testing sessions said at the outset 

that they routinely searched online for safety information on particular 

products. Similarly, none of the consumers in our testing sessions noticed 

that they could be directed to the agency’s main site, CPSC.gov, by 

clicking on certain links in SaferProducts.gov. Only the expert evaluator 

noticed that by opening a recall notice, the website user would leave 

SaferProducts.gov and go to CPSC.gov.

However, as consumers completed the various tasks in the testing 

sessions, they better understood the website’s features and functions. In 

responding to our closing questions about their overall experiences in 

using the site, most said that they would use SaferProducts.gov again 

now that they were aware of it. For example, some consumers found 

information about product recalls the most useful component of the site 

and said they would give more weight to this information. In our testing 

sessions, about one-quarter of the consumers also found value in the 

incident reports, noting that they helped website users understand 

whether products that had not yet been recalled had safety issues. Two of 

the consumers commented that they found the content of the reports to 

be more credible than other websites that provide a forum for consumer 

complaints. In addition, a few consumers pointed to the amount of detail 

in the reports, such as the incident description, location, and date as 

particularly helpful. 

Nevertheless, because of the usability issues in the areas we identified 

(for example, not having a clear and “up-front” statement of what the site 

contains and how it can be used), consumers may not use all of the site’s 

available features and be dissuaded from completing and submitting 

reports. CPSC officials also acknowledged that awareness of the agency 

could be heightened if consumers were informed about CPSC while using 

or searching SaferProducts.gov. 

CPSC has used many approaches to inform the public about 

SaferProducts.gov, employing many key practices of consumer education 

planning in the process. Incorporating the promotion of SaferProducts.gov 

into its broader effort to increase awareness of the agency has 

represented a logical approach that has prevented duplication. However, 

our work confirms CPSC’s perception that public awareness of 

SaferProducts.gov is likely low. For example, none of the participants in 

Conclusions 
 

Page 31 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

our usability tests had heard of SaferProducts.gov prior to the testing. 

Although CPSC has employed many of the key practices for consumer 

education planning, it has not established metrics to measure the success 

of its efforts. By establishing such metrics, the agency would be better 

able to determine which of its outreach efforts had the most impact on 

increasing awareness and use of the site and thus could more effectively 

target its limited resources to increase use of the site. 

In addition to establishing and using metrics, more data about the use of 

SaferProducts.gov could help CPSC target its marketing and outreach. 

Currently, CPSC collects limited data about the use of SaferProducts.gov. 

For example, it collects data on the number of visitors, but not whether 

they are using the site to search for information—one of the main 

functions of the site. It also does not collect demographic data about the 

users’ age, gender, or income. These types of data could help CPSC 

identify groups, populations, or areas on which to focus to further 

increase use of the site. 

Our usability testing with consumers identified other ways in which CPSC 

may increase the use of SaferProducts.gov. Although our testing revealed 

that many consumers found the site generally easy to use, it also 

revealed that certain search functions, site registration, and lack of a clear 

statement of purpose posed challenges for some users. By improving the 

site in these areas, CPSC could help ensure that consumers take 

advantage of all the features of the site and are able to search for and 

report information in an easy and convenient manner. Making these 

improvements also may provide CPSC with additional reports from 

consumers to inform its safety assessments and other regulatory efforts.

To improve the awareness, use, and usefulness of SaferProducts.gov, 

CPSC should take the following three actions:

• establish and incorporate metrics to assess efforts to increase 

awareness and use of SaferProducts.gov,

• look for cost-effective ways of gathering additional data about the 

users and their use of SaferProducts.gov, and

• implement cost-effective usability improvements to 

SaferProducts.gov, taking into account the results of any existing 

usability testing or any new testing CPSC may choose to conduct.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 32 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

We provided a draft of this report to CPSC for review and comment. In 

commenting on the draft report, the Chairman and Commissioners stated 

that they support the report’s recommendations. Specifically, they stated 

that CPSC staff will look for cost-effective ways to improve awareness of 

SaferProducts.gov, improve the usability of the site based on research on 

best practices in web design, and gather additional metrics about users. 

The Chairman and Commissioners’ comments are reprinted in appendix 

III. CPSC also provided technical comments that we incorporated in the 

report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and to the Chairman and Commissioners of CPSC. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Alicia Puente Cackley, Director

Financial Markets and Community Investment

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

The objectives of our report were to examine (1) the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission’s (CPSC) efforts to inform the public about 

SaferProducts.gov, (2) who has been using the website and to what 

extent, and (3) the extent to which consumers have found the website to 

be useful. 

For the first objective, we reviewed CPSC marketing, budget, evaluation, 

and planning documents to determine the status of the agency’s public 

information efforts related to SaferProducts.gov. We sought to determine 

whom CPSC had been targeting; how, if at all, the agency was evaluating 

the outcomes of its efforts; and any future plans to promote awareness 

and use of the site. We compared CPSC’s efforts with criteria on key 

practices for consumer education planning.1

For the second objective, we analyzed data, published on 

SaferProducts.gov as of January 3, 2013, about users who filed incident 

reports on the site. We also analyzed other data CPSC maintains to 

measure the extent of website use. The data on the extent of website use 

covered the period from March 2011 through December 2012. We 

interviewed CPSC officials about efforts to collect any demographic 

data—such as age, gender, or income level—about site users. 

Furthermore, we reviewed existing studies, such as those by consumer 

groups and a law firm, related to the use of SaferProducts.gov. To assess 

data reliability, we drew on our prior work assessing SaferProducts.gov 

and reviewed relevant documentation, performed manual tests to look for 

errors, and interviewed CPSC officials responsible for the data.

We interviewed consumer 

product safety experts from nine groups representing consumers, 

researchers, and various industries to determine what additional steps, if 

any, CPSC could take to better inform the public about 

SaferProducts.gov. We identified these experts through our prior work or 

based on recommendations from those we interviewed. For context, we 

interviewed an official in CPSC’s Office of Communications and reviewed 

CPSC’s strategies to increase awareness of the agency as a whole.

2

 

1

For more information on key practices for consumer education planning, see 

As noted 

in the body of the report, CPSC has a statement on SaferProducts.gov, to 

provide notice as required by statute, that it does not guarantee the 

accuracy of incident reports submitted by users of the site. We 

considered this statement as part of our overall assessment of the data’s 

GAO-08-43. 

2

See GAO-12-30. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

reliability and determined that, for the purposes of this report, the data 

were sufficiently reliable. We did not review specific incident descriptions 

that individuals filed and do not attest to the reliability of that information.

For the third objective, we conducted website usability tests with 37 

consumers—who represented a mix of demographic characteristics in 

terms of age, gender, and educational level—to obtain their views on how 

easy it was to use SaferProducts.gov and how useful they found the 

website. We conducted the tests in Washington, D.C., Dallas, Texas, and 

San Francisco, California. We chose these locations for geographic 

dispersion and ease of testing. We followed the protocols and used the 

Washington, D.C. facilities of the General Services Administration (GSA) 

for our testing conducted through the First Fridays Usability Testing 

Program. At this location, GSA recruited three volunteer testers on our 

behalf. Consistent with the GSA program protocols, a moderator 

facilitated the testers’ execution of various website tasks, such as 

searching for recalled products and submitting mock incident reports. We 

followed similar protocols in San Francisco and Dallas. To identify the 

participants in San Francisco and Dallas, we worked with a contractor to 

recruit prospective testers who had a mix of demographic characteristics. 

We held two focus groups in each location, for a total of four groups. Two 

groups had eight participants per group and the other two groups had 

nine participants per group. In all four groups, a moderator facilitated the 

testers’ execution of various tasks, as was done in Washington, D.C. 

Although the results of our usability tests are not generalizable to all U.S. 

consumers, they provided us with in-depth, interactive feedback and 

detailed perspectives from a range of website users about the usability 

challenges associated with SaferProducts.gov.

To supplement our approach, we requested and reviewed an expert 

evaluation conducted by the First Fridays program manager. The GSA 

official evaluated SaferProducts.gov based on the following criteria: (1) 

accessibility—the ability of people with physical or mental disabilities to 

use the site; (2) identity and purpose—whether the site clearly presents 

its purpose, including what the site offers and what a user can do on it; (3)

clarity—the ability to read and digest content; (4) navigation—how easily 

users can find information; and (5) design and content—focusing on the 

layout, headers, and design. Another GSA official provided a more indepth accessibility review of SaferProducts.gov to identify issues that 

users with disabilities might encounter when navigating the site. 

According to GSA, although an expert evaluation can be a useful starting 

point for determining a website’s usability strengths and weaknesses, the 

expert evaluation emphasizes the importance of the user experience. In 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

addition, we reviewed various other website usability resources and 

criteria, including Usability.gov, to understand the key practices for 

making websites easy to use and helpful.3

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to March 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

3

Usability.gov is a resource for federal web designers to make websites more usable, 

useful, and accessible. 
Appendix II: GAO Script, Including Questions 

and Tasks, for Usability Testing with 

Consumers

Page 36 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Appendix II: GAO Script, Including Questions 

and Tasks, for Usability Testing with 

Consumers 
Appendix II: GAO Script, Including Questions 

and Tasks, for Usability Testing with 

Consumers

Page 37 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission
Appendix II: GAO Script, Including Questions 

and Tasks, for Usability Testing with 

Consumers

Page 38 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission
Appendix II: GAO Script, Including Questions 

and Tasks, for Usability Testing with 

Consumers

Page 39 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission
Appendix II: GAO Script, Including Questions 

and Tasks, for Usability Testing with 

Consumers

Page 40 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission
Appendix II: GAO Script, Including Questions 

and Tasks, for Usability Testing with 

Consumers

Page 41 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Page 42 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 43 GAO-13-306 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Debra Johnson, Assistant 

Director; Meghana Acharya; Mark Bird; William Carrigg; Jeremy Cluchey; 

Meredith Graves; Ronald Ito; Sarah Kaczmarek; May Lee; Marc Molino; 

Patricia Moye; Barbara Roesmann; Andrew Stavisky; and Julie Trinder 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(250678)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.