How do homicide perpetration rates per 100,000 vary by race in the United States over the last 30 years?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Homicide rates per 100,000 in the U.S. have shown persistent and large racial disparities over roughly the last 20–30 years: Black and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations—especially young males—have the highest rates, while Asian and White populations have the lowest (examples: overall 2019 rate 6.1; Black males age 15–24 at 74.6 per 100,000 in 2019) [1]. Multiple federal and peer‑reviewed analyses document a sharp rise in firearm homicides after 2019 with widening gaps by race through 2021–2022 (national firearm homicide 2019→2022: 4.4 to 5.9 per 100,000) [1] [2].
1. Historical trend: long decline, spike around 2020, then partial retreat
U.S. homicide rates fell across the 1990s and 2000s but began to trend upward in the mid‑2010s and surged again in 2019–2021; provisional data show a decline in 2022 from the pandemic‑era peak but still higher than pre‑2019 levels [3] [2]. The JAMA Network Open GBD analysis documents totals and trends for 2000–2019, showing an overall 2019 homicide rate of 6.1 per 100,000 and large within‑period variation by age, sex and race [1].
2. Who carries the highest burden: Black and AI/AN males concentrated at young ages
The most extreme rates are concentrated among young Black and American Indian/Alaska Native males. The GBD study reports Black males aged 15–24 at 74.6 per 100,000 and Black males 25–44 at 70.0 per 100,000 in 2019; AI/AN males in similar age bands also showed very high rates (AI/AN males 25–44 at ~33.5 per 100,000) [1] [4]. These figures show homicide is a disease of young men in particular communities [1].
3. Racial gaps: magnitude and persistence
Multiple sources quantify persistent, large disparities. JAMA/GBD and other official reports show Black victimization rates many times higher than White rates; government summaries and policy briefs find Black males were roughly 6–8 times more likely to die by homicide than White males in recent years, and Black females several times more likely than White females in the 2020–2021 period [1] [3]. CDC and MMWR analyses of firearm homicides mirror that pattern—Black males had the highest firearm homicide rates in 2021 (e.g., 52.9 per 100,000 age‑adjusted for Black males vs. 1.5 for Asian males) [5] [2].
4. Firearms drove the recent increases and racial widening
The post‑2019 surge in homicides was largely a firearm phenomenon. CDC MMWR shows the national firearm homicide rate rose sharply from 2019 to 2020 and again in 2021, with provisional 2022 estimates lowering slightly but remaining above 2019 (4.4 → 5.9 per 100,000) and with racial/ethnic patterns showing continued disparities [2]. The Council on Criminal Justice also highlights that since 2020 more than three‑quarters of homicides involved guns, reinforcing the racial patterns described above [3].
5. Data sources, limits and measurement differences
The best national trend evidence comes from death certificate data and modeled small‑area estimates (GBD/Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation), the CDC/NCHS vital statistics, FBI UCR/NIBRS reporting, and BJS synthesis—each has strengths and gaps. The GBD county/race estimates for 2000–2019 use validated small‑area models and NCHS deaths [1] [6]. FBI and state reporting systems have historically underreporting or inconsistent race data when fields are unknown; BJS and FBI tables carry notes about missing offender information [7] [8]. These measurement differences complicate exact year‑to‑year comparisons and offender vs. victim rate calculations [7].
6. Interpretation: structural concentration, age patterns, and policy implications
Researchers repeatedly link concentrated homicide burden to structural factors—community disadvantage, firearm access, and histories of violence—resulting in concentrated effects among young men of color and elevated years‑of‑life lost in these populations [9] [1]. Policy briefs emphasize the need to address firearms, trauma‑informed victim services, and place‑based prevention because the burden is not evenly distributed [3] [9].
7. Alternative figures and caution about secondary sources
Non‑peer sources and compilations (e.g., “The Global Statistics,” advocacy organizations, and private aggregators) publish headline rates and ratios (for example, various 2024–2025 Black victimization figures around 20–28 per 100,000), but these estimates vary and sometimes extend beyond the public, government, or peer‑reviewed records cited here [10] [11] [12]. Use peer‑reviewed or federal data (GBD/JAMA, CDC, BJS/FBI) for trend work because secondary sites often present projections or aggregated snapshots without full methodological transparency [1] [2].
Limitations: available sources cover 2000–2019 in the GBD data and 2019–2022 in CDC/BJS/FBI reporting; comprehensive, comparable per‑race homicide perpetration rates across a full 30‑year span are not all contained in the supplied documents. For offender (perpetration) rates specifically, FBI expanded homicide tables and BJS trend reports provide partial snapshots but have reporting gaps and exclude incidents with unknown offender race [7] [8].