Arrest Rates, Clearance Rates, Successful Prosecution: How Are We Defining Success?
Contributing Author: Allysa Gambarella, Esq., Senior Director, Education & Engagement, National District Attorneys Association
In communities across the country, violent crime continues to inflict deep harm — the devastation of lives lost, the erosion of public trust and safety, and the increased expenditure of resources.
While the responsibility of crime is commonly (and often solely) placed on police, the truth is that both police and prosecutors play a critical role in criminal justice operations, crime reduction, and prevention efforts. While their roles are different, their successes are significantly dependent upon each other, and their individual and collective efforts have lasting impact on the communities they serve. Yet often, the metrics and definitions by which success is measured vary significantly between them.
One of the most critical, yet often misunderstood, metrics in evaluating crime reduction strategies and law enforcement efficiency is clearance rates. Clearance rates represent the proportion of cases that law enforcement agencies consider, and report, as solved or closed. Clearance rates are used by police departments when evaluating crime trends, developing and analyzing crime strategies, and reporting crime rates to the public. What it means to clear a case, however, can vary significantly depending on whether you’re in a police department or a prosecutor’s office.
When police clearance rates do not accurately reflect or account for arrest rates and/or rates of successful prosecution, it can result in data and information that is misleading, confusing, and distracting from collective crime reduction efforts.
Current Definitions
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been collecting crime data and statistics through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program since 1930.[1] The program represents a “cooperative statistical effort of more than 18,000 city, university, college, county, state, tribal and federal law enforcement agencies eligible to voluntarily report data on crimes.”[2] While the primary objective of the UCR program is to “generate reliable information for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management,” the data collected under the program has become one of the most prominent social indicators in the country.[3]
In 2021, in an effort to improve the quality of crime data, the UCR Program transitioned from the Summary Reporting System (SRS) to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).[4] NIBRS aimed to improve the UCR Program’s data collection by requiring more detail and greater specificity about offenses, including the circumstances surrounding the crime, location, time of day, victim information, offender information, arrest information and reasons for case clearance.[5]
Given the need for accurate data and standardization in reporting, the UCR Program has issued various relevant definitions over the years, including definitions for case clearance. According to the definitions issued by the UCR Program, law enforcement can clear or close a case by arrest or by exceptional means.[6] In many jurisdictions, a case can also be closed by administrative means, but that does not necessarily mean a case is cleared for UCR reporting purposes.[7]
A law enforcement agency can report a case as cleared by arrest or solved, for crime reporting purposes, when three conditions have been met: At least one person has been (1) arrested, (2) charged with the commission of the offense, and (3) turned over to the court for prosecution (through arrest, court summons, or police notice).[8]
Cases can also be cleared by exceptional means, which means that “elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender.”[9] To clear an offense by exceptional means under NIBRS, law enforcement is required to meet four conditions:
- The investigation must have clearly and definitely established the identity of at least one offender.
- There must be sufficient probable cause to support arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.
- Law enforcement must know the exact location of the offender so they could make an arrest if circumstances did not prevent it.
- There must be a reason outside the control of law enforcement that prevents them from arresting, charging, and turning the case over for prosecution.[10]
NIBRS provides five data selections which qualify as reasons “outside the control of law enforcement” preventing the arrest, charge, or turning over a case for prosecution. They are:
- The death of the offender
- Prosecution declined (by the prosecutor for other than lack of probable cause)
- The offender is in custody in another jurisdiction (and includes when extradition is denied)
- The victim refused to cooperate with prosecution
- The case involved a juvenile offender who was not taken into custody, but rather oral or written notice was given to the juvenile offender’s legal guardians.[11]
While not every agency submits data to the FBI as part of the UCR Program, and there has been criticism around the quality and quantity of data submitted to the FBI, most agencies have internal reporting requirements with similar structures, procedures, and definitions for case closure and clearance. Many agencies, however, have expanded their interpretation and use of “clearance by exceptional means” to allow the department to exceptionally clear cases in circumstances far beyond what is contemplated and defined in the UCR definitions. For example, some jurisdictions will count a case as exceptionally cleared before even sending the case to the prosecutor’s office to determine if charges will be filed. This can result in an inflation of clearance rate numbers, especially in jurisdictions where arrest rates and exceptional clearance rates are not being reported separately.[12]
Remarkably, consultation with prosecutors and data on prosecutorial outcomes is not often required or even considered, as part of law enforcement agencies’ case clearance/closure process. And, as you can see from the FBI definitions, prosecutors are barely mentioned. This is extremely problematic because it undervalues the critical role that prosecutors play in our justice system. Prosecutors are experts in the law. They not only decide if and what charges are appropriate, but they are responsible for proving charged cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors determine how a case will be resolved, and they make sentencing and detention recommendations to the court, which can impact whether and for how long offenders are incarcerated.
When police and prosecutors measure success using different metrics, the result can be confusing and misleading, especially when data is reported to the public. Consider that in practice, police can charge an offender or clear a case consistent with law enforcement definitions and metrics, but the investigation and evidence collected is determined to be insufficient to support a successful prosecution. This can result in police counting (and reporting) a case successfully cleared/closed, while successful prosecution was not possible, and the offender was ultimately not held accountable.
For prosecutors, a case is not truly cleared unless it results in formal charges and proceeds through the justice system, or it results in a decision not to prosecute for any number of reasons (i.e., victim uncooperative, insufficient evidence, exoneration). Most often, prosecutorial metrics are based on rates of successful prosecution. It is important to note, however, that successful prosecution does not always mean conviction. Success in prosecution can be measured by conviction, plea, exoneration/dismissal, diversion, or downgraded charges, to name a few, depending on the facts of the case, strength of the investigation, victim input, statutory mandates, and community expectations.
In all cases, successful prosecution is largely dependent upon a thorough and effective investigation by law enforcement. Prosecutors present the evidence that they have available, and when they have an incomplete investigation or insufficient evidence, successful prosecution may be difficult, and case outcomes may suffer. While many jurisdictional structures support prosecutorial involvement and consultation in law enforcement investigations, several do not. Collaboration and communication between police and prosecutors during the investigative stages of a case ensures thorough and effective investigations that will stand up in court and provide the best possible chance at successful prosecution.
The Problem with Definitional Variability
Definitional variability can result in misleading data. Critics of clearance-rate-metrics argue that it permits crime statistics to be inflated, and it allows ineffective police departments to maintain legitimacy. Critics further argue that clearance rate statistics do not allow for the identification of systemic issues that may contribute to crime reduction efforts. This is especially true when clearance rates are reported independently of arrest rates and rates of conviction or successful prosecution.
By way of example, in May of 2025, the Austin Police Department claimed a 100% case clearance rate for homicides cases from 2023. A Sergeant who was interviewed reported that just over half of the 2023 homicide cases that were cleared by law enforcement had “some sort of adjudication” while the other half were “still out there.” No information was provided as to what the adjudications were (the term adjudication can be used to describe conviction, plea, dismissal, downgrade etc.), and why half of the cases were still pending two years later. Yet, the statistics being reported in the media and to the public, was that by police standards, the 2023 homicide clearance rate was a success.[13]
Similarly, in 2024, the Albuquerque Police Department boasted a 126% homicide clearance rate, with absolutely no information or statistics provided as to how many cases resulted in arrest, charges, or successful prosecution.[14]
While these are just two examples of how clearance rates are being reported to the public, they illustrate the point that arrest rates, clearance rates, and successful prosecution are all being defined and reported differently.
Defining Success
Crime reduction efforts cannot be compartmentalized: Crime is not just law enforcement’s responsibility. Well-functioning criminal justice systems must prioritize communication, collaboration, and a unified approach to crime reduction. Well- functioning systems bring together multi-disciplinary partners to identify common objectives and effective strategies. They understand the challenges that are faced, and they work together as a team.
Prosecutors are critical partners in crime reduction efforts. Finding a metric that lends itself to a more accurate evaluation of collaborative crime reduction efforts and system efficiency would better represent the holistic approach that must be taken to effectively combat violent crime.
Considerations
Clarify Definitions: Agencies should be more transparent about what “clearance” means in their reporting. Communities, stakeholders, and other criminal justice partners need to understand whether a case was cleared by arrest or by exception, what the differences are between them, and what the prosecutorial outcome was. Since agencies have the discretion to adopt internal reporting systems different from the UCR Program’s metrics, it would also be helpful to understand the definitions guiding a police department’s internal data collection as compared to any federal reporting they are complying with. [15]
Strengthen police-prosecutor collaboration. Police and prosecutors should meet regularly to discuss ongoing investigations and prosecutions. Early coordination can ensure that cases are built with legal standards for prosecution in mind, increasing the likelihood of charges being filed and successful case outcomes. Task forces are a great way for partner organizations to work together to address and prioritize specific crime concerns in the community. Ensuring that prosecutors are available for case review, law enforcement questions, and search/arrest warrant approval is imperative to fostering effective communication and collaboration between police and prosecutors.
Require prosecutorial input before law enforcement can close their case. Requiring prosecutorial input and approval before law enforcement can close a case will ensure that the police investigation meets the legal standards for successful prosecution. It will allow for any additional or follow-up investigation to be performed, and it will give police and prosecutors the opportunity to more thoroughly discuss cases and outcomes.
Develop a unified approach to collecting, analyzing, and reporting certain data. Each jurisdiction is structured differently, and so it is important that prosecutors and law enforcement identify what success means for their specific jurisdiction. Jointly identifying how crime data will be collected, analyzed, and reported will create more accurate crime statistics (on both a local and national level) and a better indication of the success of collective crime reduction efforts. Given the undeniable role that prosecutors play in crime reduction, it is also important that prosecutors be included in conversations around crime reporting and data collection and analysis on a national level.
Final Thought
Improving clearance rates is not just about solving crimes — it’s about supporting victims of crime, restoring trust, preventing future violence, and ensuring that justice is more than a statistic. But to do that, we must first agree on what “cleared” really means.
[1] U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigations. Uniform Crime Reporting Program, (September 2018), https://le.fbi.gov/file-repository/about-the-ucr-program.pdf/view
[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Id. at 1.
[4] U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigations. Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting Program 2025.0 National Incident-Based Reporting System User Manual, (June 23, 2025), NIBRS User Manual 2025.0 — LE
[5] Id. at 1.
[6] U.S Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigations, Crime in the United States 2018: Clearances, (Released Fall of 2019), https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/clearances
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 1.
[9] Id at 1.
[10] U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigations. Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting Program 2025.0 National Incident-Based Reporting System User Manual, 74–76 (June 23, 2025), NIBRS User Manual 2025.0 — LE
[11] U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigations. Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting Program 2025.0 National Incident-Based Reporting System User Manual, 74–76 (June 23, 2025), NIBRS User Manual 2025.0 — LE
[12] Shima Baradaran Baughman, How Effective Are Police? The Problem of Clearance Rates and Criminal Accountability (2020). Utah Law Faculty Scholarship. 213.
[13] Elizabeth Evans and Angela Shen, APD Homicide Unit achieves 100% case clearance rate for 2023, Fox 7 Austin (May 13, 2025), https://www.fox7austin.com/news/austin-police-homicide-case-closure-rate-2023
[14] Spencer Schacht, Albuquerque police boast 126% homicide clearance rate, KOB 4 (March 21, 2024), https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-police-boast-126-homicide-clearance-rate/
[15] U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigations. Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting Program 2025.0 National Incident-Based Reporting System User Manual, (June 23, 2025), NIBRS User Manual 2025.0 — LE