Fact check: What percentage of rapes in the US are reported to the police?

1. Why the “one in three” figure dominates headlines and policy debates

Multiple recent summaries and news pieces repeat the “1 in 3” or roughly 31% reporting statistic, tracing it to RAINN’s synthesis of national surveys and advocacy-collected data ^[1]. That consistency across reporting outlets gives the number traction in policy debates and media coverage, but the underlying data combine heterogeneous studies with different definitions of sexual assault, timeframes, and survey methods. The repeated citation of the single headline figure can obscure important methodological variation and the fact that the probability a survivor reports varies with victim age, perpetrator relationship, and institutional context ^[3].

2. College and campus cases: a much lower reporting rate and a warning sign

Focused studies and local reporting signal that college or campus sexual assaults are reported to police at far lower rates — sometimes under 5% — a stark contrast to the broader national average and a reason scholars warn that campus data cannot be generalized to all survivors ^[2]. These low campus reporting rates reflect barriers including fear of retaliation, mistrust of campus adjudication, stigma, and concerns about confidentiality. Because campus populations are highly visible in debates like #MeToo and institutional reform, their low reporting depresses overall accountability and shapes reform priorities even where broader-community reporting is higher ^[2].

3. Reporting is only one part of the accountability pipeline; case clearances are falling

Even when incidents are reported, police are increasingly less likely to close sex-assault investigations: FBI-derived reporting cited a nationwide clearance rate near 32% in 2017, the lowest since at least the 1960s, signaling a widening gap between reports and case resolution ^[3]. Low clearance rates stem from evidentiary challenges, resource shortfalls in investigative units, and evolving definitions and standards of proof. The combination of underreporting and low closure multiplies the chance that perpetrators avoid consequences, and it informs survivor choices about whether reporting will produce protection or retraumatization ^[3].

4. Local service statistics reveal survivor choices that don’t involve police

Service providers and hospital-based forensic programs document regular use of “no report” options: some assault exams and counseling services are accessed without triggering police investigations, exemplified by local reports of roughly 50 no-report examinations per year in a Tulsa center’s caseload of 500 exams, indicating survivors’ preference for care without criminalization ^[4]. These service-use patterns reflect survivor priorities — medical care, evidence preservation, or emotional support — and policy debates over whether to expand alternative response pathways and trauma-informed care while still preserving the option to pursue criminal charges later ^[4].

5. International comparisons and misinterpretation risks muddy the conversation

Press coverage of UK statistics — for instance, articles highlighting that under 3% of reported sex attacks in the UK resulted in a suspect being charged — can be conflated with U.S. reporting-rate claims, creating analytic confusion ^[5]. The UK figure refers to the downstream charging rate among reported cases, not to the share of all assaults that are reported to police, and conflating these different metrics obscures where failures occur: underreporting, investigative attrition, or prosecutorial decisions. Distinguishing reporting rates from clearance/charging rates is crucial for targeted reforms ^[5].

6. What the different sources agree on and where they diverge

Across the cited sources there is broad agreement that a substantial majority of sexual assaults are not reported to police, and that when reports occur many do not lead to charge or conviction ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Divergence appears around magnitudes in subpopulations: campus-focused work shows much lower reporting rates than national summaries, and country-to-country comparisons introduce different criminal-justice outcomes. These consistent patterns—low reporting and low clearance—suggest multi-pronged remedies but also caution against one-size-fits-all policy prescriptions ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Implications for policymakers, journalists, and survivors’ advocates

Policymakers should treat the “~31% reported” headline as a useful but blunt indicator and prioritize disaggregated data collection to capture differences by age, setting, and relationship to perpetrator ^{[1] [2]}. Journalists must avoid conflating reporting rates with charge or conviction rates to prevent misleading impressions that the U.S. necessarily performs like other jurisdictions ^[5]. Survivors’ advocates can use both the national estimate and the subpopulation findings to argue for expanded survivor-centered services, no-report forensic options, and strengthened investigative capacity where clearance rates are falling ^{[4] [3]}.