Why Clearance Rates Don’t Tell the Whole Story About Solving Crimes

Police departments' clearance rates — the share of reported cases they label "closed" — are a widely cited measure of law-enforcement effectiveness. Elected officials, community leaders and the public often point to these figures when debating budgets, policy and public safety. But the metric is more complicated than it first appears and can be misleading without context.

Why clearance rates matter

Clearances can matter for public safety: solved cases remove repeat offenders from the streets, provide closure for victims and families, and can strengthen community trust that helps police solve future crimes. Research shows that the perceived likelihood of being caught is a powerful deterrent — which is why clearance rates are closely watched.

“Clearance rate reflects police actions, but also the vibe and how the community feels — the confidence and faith they have in the police,”

Thaddeus Johnson, assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia State University and former police officer.

What the numbers hide

At its simplest, a clearance rate is cleared cases divided by reported cases. Federal guidance allows cases to be cleared in two ways: by arrest (when police make an arrest and charges are filed) or by "exceptional means" — when investigators say they have enough evidence to arrest someone but cannot for reasons outside police control. Examples include a suspect’s death, flight from the country, custody in another jurisdiction that refuses extradition, prosecutors declining to charge, or victims declining to pursue the case.

Because agencies have discretion in using exceptional clearances, similar investigations may be counted as "solved" in one jurisdiction and remain open in another. High rates of exceptional clearances can give the impression that more arrests have been made than actually occurred.

Timing also complicates the picture: clearances are recorded in the year a case is closed, not in the year the crime occurred. Departments that clear a backlog of older cases in a single year can show an apparent spike in performance even if newly reported crimes remain unresolved.

Operational limits that affect clearances

Several practical factors influence rates. Forensic crime labs are stretched as new technologies (and larger evidence volumes) raise demand for testing. Many agencies face chronic staffing shortages, overwhelmed detective units, rising caseloads and strained community relationships — all of which can depress clearance rates. Conversely, stronger witness cooperation, better investigative tools and the resolution of backlogged cases can push rates up.

National trends show a long-term decline in clearance rates for many violent crimes. According to FBI data, the national homicide clearance rate fell from about 72% in 1980 to 61% in 2024. Rape clearance rates dropped from roughly 49% in 1980 to 27% in 2024, and aggravated assault fell from 59% to 49% in the same period. Robbery clearances rose slightly from about 24% to 30%.

Those averages obscure wide local variation: in 2024, violent-crime clearance rates were among the highest in Vermont, Delaware and Idaho and among the lowest in New Mexico, Georgia and Mississippi, according to a 50-state analysis by the Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Limits of reporting and what to look for instead

National reporting systems have gaps. Participation in the FBI's crime-reporting program is voluntary, and some agencies submit crime counts but omit clearance data. A recorded clearance does not guarantee a prosecutor filed charges or that the case resulted in a conviction — outcomes that matter most to victims and families — nor does it prove the right person was arrested.

“It’s an imperfect metric for the performance of our criminal justice system,”

Marc Krupanski, criminal justice policy director at Arnold Ventures.

Experts recommend evaluating clearance rates alongside other measures: prosecutorial outcomes (charges filed and convictions), police response times, victim satisfaction, and community trust. They also advise analyzing rates over longer time frames (10–20 years), adjusting for population (per 100,000 residents), and breaking out clearances by arrest versus exceptional means. Tracking how many clearances lead to charges and convictions provides important context on investigative effectiveness.

Policy responses and proposals

Several states have recently moved to improve reporting and investigative capacity. Illinois passed a law requiring law-enforcement agencies to publish routine clearance data on homicides and nonfatal shootings beginning July 2026. Missouri approved a similar law directing its Department of Public Safety to publish statewide rates and create a grant program to help departments solve violent crimes. Texas lawmakers established a pilot to create rapid DNA testing facilities in two counties.

In Michigan, bipartisan legislators introduced the Violent Crime Clearance Act after the state reported a 48% violent-crime clearance rate last year. The bill would create a statewide grant program for hiring and training investigators and crime-lab staff, upgrading evidence-collection and record systems, supporting witnesses, and imposing stricter clearance-rate reporting. The legislation includes provisions to distribute funds across the state so rural agencies are not left behind; no single department could receive more than 20% of program funds in a year.

Supporters emphasize the human stakes. Michael Bouchard, Oakland County Sheriff, said: “These aren't just statistics. These are people... Trying to find and bring closure — whether it's an armed robbery, a rape or a murder — is critically important.”

Bottom line

Clearance rates are a useful but incomplete tool for measuring police performance. They signal trends and resource needs, but without breakdowns by arrest versus exceptional clearance, time-lag context, and related prosecutorial outcomes, they can mislead. Policymakers and the public should view clearance rates as one part of a broader set of indicators that together better reflect how effectively crimes are investigated and victims are served.