How do age-adjusted homicide perpetration rates differ by race and gender in the past three decades?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Age-adjusted homicide rates have been consistently highest for non‑Hispanic Black males and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) males, particularly among young adults, with large gaps versus non‑Hispanic White and Asian populations; CDC reported Black males had an age‑adjusted firearm‑related homicide rate of 52.9 per 100,000 in 2021 (males overall 11.1, females 2.1) [1] and the GBD/JAMA analysis found AIAN and Black males aged 15–44 had the highest homicide rates from 2000–2019 [2]. National time series show declines across groups through the 2000s followed by rises in the mid‑2010s and pandemic years, with disparities persisting or widening rather than converging [3] [4] [1].
1. A three‑decade arc: decline, rebound, and pandemic spike
From the late 1990s into the 2000s, age‑adjusted homicide rates for major racial and ethnic groups declined, then reversed with significant increases around 2014–2016 and further shifts during the pandemic years. The CDC’s trend analyses documented a decline through the early 2010s followed by increases in 2014–2015 for non‑Hispanic White, non‑Hispanic Black, and Hispanic populations [3] [4]. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD)/JAMA study produced modeled county‑level and national estimates for 2000–2019, confirming substantial variation over that period and pointing to persistent high rates in specific populations [5] [2].
2. Who bears the burden: race and gender split sharply
Males face far higher age‑adjusted homicide rates than females across every racial and ethnic category. CDC’s 2021 firearm‑related quickstat reported an age‑adjusted firearm homicide rate of 11.1 per 100,000 for males versus 2.1 for females [1]. Within men, non‑Hispanic Black males and AIAN males carry the highest burdens: CDC noted Black males had the highest firearm‑related rate in 2021 at 52.9 per 100,000, while the GBD/JAMA analysis highlighted AIAN and Black males aged 15–44 as the groups with the highest homicide rates in 2000–2019 [1] [2].
3. Age matters: concentration among younger males
Homicide risk concentrates among adolescents and young adults. GBD/JAMA modeling and the public CDC reporting both emphasize that the highest homicide rates occur among males aged roughly 15–44 — with AIAN and Black males in the 15–44 window especially affected [2]. Secondary summaries and advocacy analyses likewise point to the highest victimization rates among people aged 15–24, reinforcing that age, race, and gender interact [6] [7].
4. Size of disparities: multiples, not marginal gaps
Disparities are large: CDC reported that during 2015–2016 non‑Hispanic Black homicide rates were roughly eight times those of non‑Hispanic Whites [4]. The 2021 firearm data show extreme concentration of firearm homicides among Black males (52.9 per 100,000) compared with Asian males (1.5 per 100,000), illustrating disparities that are orders of magnitude, not mere percentage points [1] [7].
5. Measurement, misclassification, and modeling caveats
All published rates depend on age adjustment choices, race/ethnicity classification, and underlying data completeness. The GBD/JAMA study used small‑area estimation, covariates, misclassification adjustments, and post‑hoc calibration, and age‑standardized to the 2010 census to produce 2000–2019 estimates [5]. CDC notes misclassification on death certificates can affect rates for Asian, AIAN, and Hispanic groups [1]. These methodological steps reduce but do not eliminate uncertainty; public dashboards and peer‑reviewed modeling approach the problem differently, producing comparable but not identical estimates [2] [1] [8].
6. Intracommunity dynamics and policy context
Most homicides are intraracial, a fact frequently cited in analyses of homicide patterns; historical reporting finds large shares of victims are killed by people of the same race, which shapes how prevention and policing debates are framed [9]. Policy responses that ignore age and gender concentration or local county‑level variation — both emphasized in the GBD data — risk misallocating resources [5] [8].
7. What sources agree and where they diverge
CDC surveillance and MMWR quickstats consistently show higher male rates and much higher Black male firearm homicide rates in recent years [1] [4]. The GBD/JAMA study extends those findings with county‑level modeled estimates and explicit misclassification adjustments, identifying AIAN males as another high‑risk group and documenting within‑county heterogeneity [2] [5]. Public summaries (e.g., Everystat) and BJS products provide complementary data but use different windows and definitions; the precise year‑to‑year magnitudes can differ across sources [10] [11].
Limitations: available sources here cover 1999–2019 (modeling) and 2021 snapshots for firearm homicides, with CDC and GBD methodologies described in the cited work; longer post‑2019 national modeled time series are not provided in these documents [5] [1]. For detailed year‑by‑year age‑adjusted perpetration (offending) rates by race and gender, available sources discuss victimization and death rates rather than direct, fully comparable perpetration rates (not found in current reporting).
If you want, I can extract and tabulate the GBD/JAMA national age‑adjusted homicide rates by race/sex/age group for 2000, 2010, and 2019 from the GHDx CSV files to show the three‑decade trajectory in numbers [8] [2].