Research Brief: Awareness of Clean Slate Laws in Pennsylvania, Utah, and Michigan

People with records often face steep barriers in society, especially in employment, housing, and education. These barriers persist even after individuals have completed their sentences and remained crime-free for years. Clean Slate laws aim to dismantle these obstacles by automatically sealing eligible records. Rather than leaving individuals to struggle with complicated, expensive petition-based processes, these laws shift the burden of clearing records onto the state.

Twelve states have already passed Clean Slate laws, and several have started automatically clearing records. This research brief focuses on awareness of Clean Slate laws in three states: Pennsylvania, Utah, and Michigan, which began implementing Clean Slate in 2019, 2020, and 2023, respectively. 

Drawing on a recent survey of 800 people with arrest and conviction records conducted by YouGov in collaboration with Dr. Nyron Crawford, Associate Professor of Political Science at Temple University, we highlight key findings pertinent to individuals’ awareness of Clean Slate laws.

In the short time since they began automatically sealing records, Clean Slate laws in Pennsylvania, Utah, and Michigan have shown significant positive impacts on individuals with records, particularly in employment, financial stability, and mental health, and nearly half the sample, all of whom were directly impacted by the legal system, thought they might be eligible for relief under their state’s Clean Slate law.

• In Pennsylvania, 44% of respondents thought they may be eligible, while 29% did not, and 27% didn’t know.
  

• In Utah, 47% of respondents reported thinking they might be eligible, while 26% did not and 27% didn’t know.
  

• For those residing in Michigan, 39% thought they might be eligible, while 38% did not and 24% didn’t know. 

The benefits of Clean Slate laws may go unrealized without sufficient public awareness. 

Despite the transformative potential of Clean Slate laws, their benefits may go unrealized without sufficient public awareness. Without this awareness, individuals may continue to face the same barriers that record clearance seeks to eliminate, despite having their records sealed. 

Understanding who is aware of Clean Slate and who is not can provide essential context for tailoring outreach and notification efforts.

Awareness of Clean Slate by Demographics

While nearly half the sample (43%) thought they might be eligible for relief under their state’s Clean Slate law after reading a brief description of the requirements, only 24% of this group had heard of their state’s Clean Slate law before taking the survey. 

For those who think they are likely eligible for Clean Slate relief,¹ awareness of Clean Slate² varied across demographic and socioeconomic groups. 

Among racial and ethnic groups, White, Black, and Hispanic respondents showed similar levels of awareness. Similarly, awareness by gender showed minimal differences. 

• Among white respondents, 23% had heard of Clean Slate, while 64% had not.
  
  
• Among Black respondents, 22% reported awareness, with 63% unaware.
  
  
• Among Hispanic respondents, 25% were aware of Clean Slate, while 71% had not heard of it.³

• Among male respondents, 24% had heard of Clean Slate, while 63% had not.
  
  
• Among female respondents: 22% reported awareness, with 63% unaware.

Marital status was more strongly associated with awareness; married and separated respondents were more likely to have heard of the law, while awareness was lowest among widowed, divorced, and never-married respondents. 

• Among likely eligible respondents who reported being married or in a domestic/civil partnership, 33% were aware of Clean Slate, and 55% were not.
  
  
• 18% of respondents who reported being separated, divorced, or widowed were aware of Clean Slate, while 69% were not.
  
  
• Only 13% of never-married respondents reported having heard of Clean Slate, while 69% had not. 

Levels of awareness also varied by education level. While none of the respondents without a high school diploma had heard of Clean Slate, awareness increased slightly with education level. 

• Among those without a college degree (no high school diploma, some college, or 2-year college degree), 22% had heard of Clean Slate, while 66% had not.
  
  
  • For respondents without a high school diploma, 0% had heard of Clean Slate, while 94% had not
    
    
  • Among high school graduates, 21% had heard of Clean Slate, while 67% had not.
    
    
  • Among those with some college education, 30% had heard of Clean Slate, while 60% had not.
    
    
  • Among those with a two-year college degree, 25% had heard of Clean Slate, while 54% had not.
    ‍
• For those with a 4-year college degree or higher, 28% had heard of Clean Slate, while 54% had not.
  
  
  • Among those with a four-year college degree, 25% reported awareness of Clean Slate, while 58% had not heard of it.
    
    
  • Among postgraduate degree holders, 34% were aware of Clean Slate, while 48% were not.

Awareness of Clean Slate also varied based on employment status. Among likely eligible respondents:

• Among those working for pay,⁴ 26% had heard of Clean Slate, while 59% had not.
  
  
• Only 20% of those not working for pay⁵ had heard of Clean Slate, while 68% had not. 

Parental status was another differentiating factor: parents or guardians of children under 18 reported higher levels of awareness compared to respondents without children. 

• Among parents or guardians of children under 18 in the household, 28% had heard of Clean Slate, while 58% had not.
  
  
• For respondents without children under 18 in the household, 21% were aware of Clean Slate, with 66% unaware.

Awareness of Clean Slate also differed based on how recently respondents had been arrested. A higher percentage of those arrested more recently, within the last 12 months, reported having heard of Clean Slate than those whose most recent arrests were older. However, those whose most recent arrest was more than 10 years ago had a slightly higher level of awareness than those with recent arrests between 1 and 10 years ago. 

Among likely eligible respondents who had heard of Clean Slate, the average age was 46 (median was 44), with a standard deviation of 16 years. Those who had not heard of Clean Slate also had an average age of 46 (median was 43), with a standard deviation of 14 years. 

Overall, various demographic and socioeconomic factors were associated with awareness of Clean Slate among likely eligible respondents. Education level, marital status, and employment status were, in particular, associated with levels of awareness, with higher education levels, being married or domestic partnership, and working full- or part-time for pay associated with greater awareness. In contrast, those with lower education levels, lower incomes, and not working for pay reported the lowest levels of awareness.

Notably, racial and ethnic differences in awareness were minimal for most groups,  and gender differences were also negligible. However, awareness was higher among parents or guardians of children under 18 and those arrested more recently. 

These findings suggest targeted outreach efforts may be necessary to improve awareness among groups with low levels of awareness, such as those with lower income and education levels or who are outside the workforce.

Sources of Awareness

Efforts to raise awareness of Clean Slate policies across states have included a diverse array of activities aimed at both individual notification and broad outreach. Direct individual notifications have been used to inform people about their record status, often through personalized mail, email, or text messages. 

Targeted communication campaigns, delivered via digital platforms, social media, and in-person outreach, have guided individuals to self-check their record status, encouraging them to take advantage of Clean Slate relief. States and organizations have also launched general mass awareness efforts, such as media campaigns and community engagement initiatives, to educate the public about Clean Slate policies and their potential benefits. Additionally, there has been a recent focus on promoting government-run or third-party portals that enable individuals to more easily check their record status. Together, these strategies aim to maximize reach and engagement across impacted communities.

Outreach and education efforts can play a pivotal role in maximizing the impact of Clean Slate laws, as they empower individuals to reclaim opportunities that were previously inaccessible. While news media was central to respondents’ awareness of Clean Slate, many of the other outreach methods may not have been tried and tested at scale in these three states. 

Over one in four who had heard of Clean Slate tried to find out if they qualified.⁶

To fully realize the benefits of automatic record sealing, eligible individuals need to be aware of their updated record status to make informed decisions based on that information. It’s particularly important that this process is easy and clear and does not require seeking costly legal assistance. Ensuring there are accessible mechanisms that allow individuals to easily access and understand their Clean Slate eligibility and records can empower them to take advantage of new opportunities that Clean Slate record clearance offers.

Those who had tried to determine whether they were eligible for Clean Slate were asked to rate the ease or difficulty of finding information about various aspects of the law.

• Information about waiting periods and eligibility criteria were reported to be the most difficult information to find.
  
  
  • 33% rated it extremely or somewhat difficult to find information on waiting periods
    
    
  • 29% rated finding information about eligibility criteria to be extremely or somewhat difficult
    
    
  • 30% report difficulty finding information about restoring certain rights after having a record cleared
    
    
  • 28% report difficulty finding information about the potential benefits of having a record cleared

It is especially important that information about eligibility criteria, waiting periods, restoration of rights, and the benefits of record clearance are clear, accurate, and widely available. 

Insights on Notification Strategies

Individual notification efforts face challenges, including outdated contact information, particularly for older records, a lack of clarity on who should be responsible and is best positioned to notify individuals about their records and eligibility for automatic relief, and privacy concerns. However, research drawing on behavioral science and related fields offers some principles for effective notification strategies. 

Are government agencies the best messengers? 

One study provides critical insights into the labor market impacts of retroactively reducing felony convictions to misdemeanors under California’s Proposition 47. Linking criminal record reductions to IRS employment data, the study compared outcomes for individuals who proactively requested reductions versus those who received automatic reductions. Proactive requesters saw modest employment benefits, while automatic reductions showed null results. A field experiment tested whether notifying individuals about automatic reductions could improve employment outcomes but found no effect, suggesting that lack of awareness about record changes was not the primary barrier. Notifications, facilitated through various channels (phone calls, emails, and letters)⁷ by the Public Defender's Office, were comprehensive but did not influence employment outcomes, raising questions about the effectiveness of government agencies as messengers for such initiatives.⁸  

Recent research further underscores the limitations of government messaging in reaching people impacted by the legal system, particularly those with low trust in government institutions. Sugie and colleagues found that administrative burdens, confusion about eligibility, and fear of legal repercussions often discouraged voter engagement among system-impacted individuals. Participants frequently viewed government messaging as unreliable or intentionally misleading. The study highlighted the critical role of community organizations, which were more successful in providing credible information, clarifying eligibility, and fostering engagement with democratic processes.⁹

Another study on voter registration among formerly incarcerated individuals underscores the importance of trust and partnerships with community organizations, especially in contexts where government messaging may be viewed skeptically. Doleac and colleagues found that mailers signed by a local non-profit organization that included basic information about voter eligibility and registration increased voter engagement among a sample of people with a felony conviction record who were eligible but not registered to vote in North Carolina. However, the mailers were more effective for mobilizing white compared to Black recipients, suggesting the potential influence of unobserved factors such as differing levels of trust in the government.¹⁰ 

Partnering with trusted community organizations rather than relying solely on government agencies can help build trust and bridge skepticism, particularly in communities where trust in government is low.

How can research-backed strategies enhance notification effectiveness?

Behavioral science research sheds light on some principles that can enhance notification strategies. First, the evidence underscores the utility of diverse communication channels. Leveraging multiple communication channels—such as text messages, emails, and postal mail—can increase the likelihood of reaching individuals,¹¹ with direct mail proving especially effective in contexts like voter registration and rights restoration.¹² 

While cost-effective and scalable, text message reminders depend on accurate and up-to-date contact information, which can be challenging to maintain, particularly for individuals with years-old records. 

When updated contact information is available, text-message notifications should be timed strategically, such as during early mornings or evenings when individuals are most likely to engage with their messages,¹³ and should include follow-up reminders to counteract procrastination.¹⁴

The Behavioral Interventions to Advance Self-Sufficiency (BIAS) project demonstrated the effectiveness of personalization, clarity, and simplicity in engaging recipients to enhance the effectiveness of social services programs that assist low-income and vulnerable families.¹⁵ 

Notifications should avoid legal jargon and clearly outline the actions recipients need to take, reducing cognitive load and increasing engagement.¹⁶ Framing messages around potential losses rather than benefits is particularly motivating, as individuals are more likely to act when faced with the risk of missing out.¹⁷ 

Sharing success stories and testimonials can also reinforce social norms and encourage individuals to engage with the opportunities provided by Clean Slate laws.¹⁸ 

By applying these research insights, policymakers and advocates can refine notification systems to ensure that the transformative potential of Clean Slate laws is fully realized.

What do we still need to learn in order to effectively notify individuals about their Clean Slate eligibility and relief? 

Despite these strategies, barriers persist. Maintaining accurate contact information for individuals eligible for Clean Slate remains a challenge, particularly as records are likely to be several years old. Studies underscore the importance of using trusted messengers and ensuring privacy safeguards to address skepticism and avoid unintentionally exposing sensitive information. 

Continuous testing and refinement of notification strategies, including personalization and simplification of content, are essential to improving their effectiveness over time. By combining these evidence-based practices, policymakers and advocates can enhance outreach efforts and ensure that the benefits of Clean Slate laws reach the individuals they are designed to help.

Continued research is essential to refine and improve notification efforts and strategies to raise awareness about Clean Slate laws. 

The Clean Slate Initiative funds independent research to examine the impacts of our policies, and our latest RFP solicited additional projects to help us understand how awareness (or the lack thereof) of Clean Slate policies affects the individuals directly impacted. We have selected several projects for funding that will help us learn, over the next few years, the most effective ways to notify individuals about the benefits of Clean Slate and how awareness of Clean Slate shapes individuals’ outcomes. 

By continuing to evaluate Clean Slate laws through ongoing research and refining their implementation, policymakers can promote a more just and equitable society where individuals are given a meaningful second chance.

While Clean Slate laws are already making a difference, increasing notification efforts—both broad and targeted—will be key to ensuring that eligible individuals are fully aware of their rights and the benefits of automatic record clearance. Broad-based public awareness campaigns, alongside more personalized and targeted notifications, can help bridge the gap between policy and impact. Effective communication strategies will ensure that these life-changing policies reach the people who need them most.

‍

Footnotes 

_{1. Respondents answered “yes” to a question asking, “After reading some details about your state’s Clean Slate law, do you think you might be eligible?”} 

_{2. Reported percentages of having heard and not heard of Clean Slate do not sum to 100% due to the exclusion of those who responded “maybe” to the question, “Have you heard of [state]’s Clean Slate or “automated record clearing” law?”} 

_{3. Respondents who identified as Asian, Native American, Two or more races, or Other were excluded due to small sample sizes.} 

_{4. This group includes those working full-time or part-time.} 

_{5. This group includes those temporarily laid off, unemployed, retired, permanently disabled individuals, and homemakers.} 

_{6. Note responses don’t sum to 100% due to multiple selections.} 

_{7. The study’s authors found that calls were the most successful form of contact for individuals eligible for charge reductions under California’s Proposition 47.} 

_{8. Agan, Amanda, Andrew Garin, Dmitri K. Koustas, Alexandre Mas, and Crystal Yang. “Labor Market Impacts of Reducing Felony Convictions.” National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper 31773. (October, 2023).} 

_{9. Sugie, Naomi F., Juan R. Sandoval, Daniela E. Kaiser, Delaney Mosca, Kyle Winnen, Emily Rong Zhang, and Iris H. Zhang. "Accessing the right to vote among system-impacted people." Punishment & Society 26, no. 4 (2024): 711-731.}

_{10. Doleac, Jennifer L., Laurel Eckhouse, Eric Foster-Moore, Allison P. Harris, Hannah Walker, and Ariel White. “Registering Returning Citizens to Vote: A Field Experiment in North Carolina.” (January 30, 2023).}

_{11. For a meta-analysis of the pretrial release intervention to provide court-date reminders in the form of postcards, letters, phone calls, and text messages with content including date, time, and location, showing small but statistically significant results, see: Bechtel, Kristen, Alexander M. Holsinger, Christopher T. Lowenkamp, and Madeline J. Warren. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Pretrial Research: Risk Assessment, Bond Type, and Interventions.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 42:443–67. (2017).} 

_{12. Citrin, Jack, Donald P. Green, and Morris Levy. “The effects of voter ID notification on voter turnout: Results from a large-scale field experiment.” Election Law Journal, 13, 2. (2014); Doleac, Jennifer L., Laurel Eckhouse, Eric Foster-Moore, Allison P. Harris, Hannah Walker, and Ariel White. “Registering Returning Citizens to Vote: A Field Experiment in North Carolina.” (January 30, 2023); Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, Marc Meredith, Daniel R. Biggers, and David J. Hendry. “Can Incarcerated Felons Be (Re)Integrated into the Political System? Results from a Field Experiment.”  American Journal of Political Science. 59(4), pp. 912-926. (October, 2015).} 

_{13. Turner, Liam D., Stuart M. Allen, and Roger M. Whitaker. "The influence of concurrent mobile notifications on individual responses." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 132 (2019): 70-80.} 

_{14. Anzelone, Caitlin, Justine Yu, and Prabin Subedi (MDRC). “Using Behavioral Insights to Increase Participation in Social Services Programs: A Case Study.” OPRE Report 2018-73. (June, 2018).} 

_{15. Ibid.}

_{16. Ibid.}

_{17. Kolle, Felix, Tom Lane, Daniele Nosenzo, and Chris Starmer. “Promoting voter registration: the effects of low-cost interventions on behaviour and norms.” Behavioral Public Policy, 4:1, 26-49. (2020).} 

_{18. Ibid.}