2017’s Safest Cities in America

People encounter hazards every day, some serious, others rare and innocuous. But we fear certain kinds more than others. According to Gallup, four in 10 Americans “fear being a victim of a mass shooting,” while 30 percent of U.S. adults are concerned about terrorism. Many also worry about falling victim to hate crimes or sexual assault. The list goes on, and these sentiments often are expressed in response to recent headlines.

But people can feel unsafe in other ways, too. Besides the types of hazards that can cause bodily injury or other physical harm, taking out an unaffordable second mortgage, forgoing health insurance or even visiting unsecured websites are also ways people run into danger.

No one can avoid all danger, however, and we take on a certain level of risk based on where we choose to live. Some cities are simply better at protecting their residents from harm. To determine where Americans can feel most secure — in more than one sense — WalletHub’s analysts compared more than 180 cities across 35 key indicators of safety. Our data set ranges from assaults per capita to unemployment rate to road quality. Read on for our findings and methodology. And don’t miss WalletHub’s Q&A with safety experts for additional insight.

1 Main Findings 2 Ask the Experts

3 Methodology

Main Findings

Embed on your website

Safest Cities in America

Overall Rank (1 = Safest)	City	Total Score	‘Home & Community Safety’ Rank	‘Financial Safety’ Rank	‘Natural-Disaster Risk’ Rank
1	Nashua, NH	87.36	4	18	23
2	South Burlington, VT	87.34	12	8	34
3	Warwick, RI	87.18	2	38	17
4	Columbia, MD	86.52	1	107	54
5	Gilbert, AZ	85.29	7	54	13
6	Fargo, ND	85.29	43	1	72
7	Lewiston, ME	84.44	46	10	9
8	Plano, TX	84.12	9	24	110
9	Portland, ME	84.03	50	7	7
10	Brownsville, TX	83.86	26	99	2
11	Chandler, AZ	83.71	20	60	10
12	Casper, WY	83.42	18	165	24
13	Burlington, VT	83.38	85	14	35
14	Peoria, AZ	83.35	22	69	21
15	Yonkers, NY	83.23	8	117	60
16	Aurora, IL	82.96	3	151	87
17	Boise, ID	82.95	28	17	68
18	Cedar Rapids, IA	82.75	24	40	99
19	Juneau and, AK	82.73	76	6	45
20	Scottsdale, AZ	82.67	29	42	47
21	Bismarck, ND	82.50	77	2	55
22	Cape Coral, FL	82.45	5	120	111
23	Durham, NC	82.41	44	50	38
24	Virginia Beach, VA	82.21	27	63	39
25	Greensboro, NC	82.05	45	81	31
26	Laredo, TX	82.03	40	109	20
27	Pearl City, HI	81.98	15	3	N/A
28	Manchester, NH	81.96	63	19	25
29	Huntington, WV	81.88	52	48	42
30	Pembroke Pines, FL	81.80	16	154	43
31	Salem, OR	81.60	54	13	63
32	Las Cruces, NM	81.51	36	116	56
33	Portland, OR	81.43	48	15	79
34	Mesa, AZ	81.38	35	88	19
35	Sioux Falls, SD	81.28	61	5	101
36	Corpus Christi, TX	80.93	65	46	3
37	Vancouver, WA	80.88	42	44	80
38	El Paso, TX	80.88	39	90	67
39	Winston-Salem, NC	80.68	49	80	84
40	Irving, TX	80.46	25	57	125
41	Dover, DE	80.41	59	143	1
42	Billings, MT	80.30	81	21	51
43	Tempe, AZ	80.06	55	94	8
44	Irvine, CA	80.04	11	71	150
45	Grand Prairie, TX	80.01	31	84	109
46	Rancho Cucamonga, CA	79.92	10	58	163
47	Raleigh, NC	79.86	91	32	50
48	Fremont, CA	79.81	19	29	156
49	Glendale, CA	79.81	6	96	152
50	Chula Vista, CA	79.53	17	103	139
51	Worcester, MA	79.41	67	79	15
52	Port St. Lucie, FL	79.16	14	53	N/A
53	Madison, WI	79.08	82	9	82
54	Chesapeake, VA	78.97	68	65	62
55	Jersey City, NJ	78.92	21	171	86
56	Henderson, NV	78.90	34	146	91
57	Fort Wayne, IN	78.57	74	75	52
58	Fort Smith, AR	78.53	99	27	90
59	Buffalo, NY	78.49	78	67	28
60	Rapid City, SD	78.43	73	12	128
61	Providence, RI	78.23	66	134	6
62	Cheyenne, WY	78.23	96	56	95
63	Missoula, MT	78.14	75	43	116
64	Augusta, GA	78.13	64	148	83
65	Santa Clarita, CA	78.05	13	85	170
66	Lincoln, NE	78.01	79	16	103
67	Charlotte, NC	77.99	60	91	93
68	Nampa, ID	77.79	100	74	44
69	Huntington Beach, CA	77.60	30	59	166
70	Tallahassee, FL	77.41	72	127	61
71	Garden Grove, CA	77.26	23	108	165
72	Oceanside, CA	77.11	41	78	146
73	Arlington, TX	76.94	58	95	121
74	Newport News, VA	76.92	90	114	16
75	Fayetteville, NC	76.62	89	133	70
76	Rochester, NY	76.58	88	119	48
77	Oxnard, CA	76.47	38	139	148
78	Grand Rapids, MI	76.41	123	20	5
79	Santa Rosa, CA	76.41	56	28	164
80	Nashville, TN	76.33	93	35	113
81	Reno, NV	76.16	53	64	160
82	Anaheim, CA	75.94	37	121	154
83	Richmond, VA	75.89	103	137	69
84	Columbus, GA	75.86	95	161	36
85	Glendale, AZ	75.78	113	113	11
86	Spokane, WA	75.75	119	73	29
86	Columbia, SC	75.75	80	111	104
88	Pittsburgh, PA	75.48	102	92	64
89	Gulfport, MS	75.39	98	147	92
90	Aurora, CO	75.17	87	49	131
91	San Diego, CA	75.06	83	66	133
92	Lubbock, TX	75.02	117	33	112
93	Omaha, NE	74.89	114	45	106
94	Ontario, CA	74.82	51	115	158
95	Jacksonville, FL	74.68	112	132	66
96	Hialeah, FL	74.66	32	178	129
97	Norfolk, VA	74.56	109	125	76
98	Minneapolis, MN	74.52	104	34	130
99	Fresno, CA	74.51	71	163	115
100	Amarillo, TX	74.48	97	25	157
101	Bridgeport, CT	74.36	101	170	14
102	Des Moines, IA	74.17	84	72	143
103	Fort Worth, TX	74.04	86	110	132
104	Fontana, CA	74.00	47	144	168
105	Moreno Valley, CA	73.99	33	153	171
106	Louisville, KY	73.86	108	106	105
107	Montgomery, AL	73.73	106	172	89
108	Tampa, FL	73.63	116	130	88
109	Lexington-Fayette, KY	73.46	57	31	N/A
110	Sacramento, CA	73.26	110	98	118
111	New Haven, CT	73.09	131	158	4
112	Albuquerque, NM	72.92	124	124	81
113	Huntsville, AL	72.87	107	86	142
114	San Francisco, CA	72.85	129	26	122
115	Honolulu, HI	72.81	92	4	N/A
116	Phoenix, AZ	72.76	136	123	22
117	Riverside, CA	72.73	69	126	169
118	Overland Park, KS	72.71	140	22	120
119	San Antonio, TX	72.61	137	89	65
120	San Jose, CA	72.48	111	30	162
121	North Las Vegas, NV	72.44	94	176	97
122	Toledo, OH	72.36	130	150	53
123	Mobile, AL	72.16	118	156	107
124	West Valley City, UT	72.05	62	47	N/A
125	St. Paul, MN	71.96	70	36	N/A
126	Houston, TX	71.82	121	149	100
127	Salt Lake City, UT	71.64	143	23	114
128	Akron, OH	71.63	134	157	59
129	Cincinnati, OH	71.27	139	135	71
130	Modesto, CA	71.25	125	87	134
131	Tacoma, WA	71.09	127	70	144
132	New York, NY	71.08	142	142	33
133	Boston, MA	70.83	150	52	32
134	Garland, TX	70.59	149	61	108
135	Chicago, IL	70.15	132	173	74
136	Springfield, MO	70.00	144	51	127
137	Long Beach, CA	69.59	122	122	151
138	Charleston, SC	69.57	135	37	172
139	Indianapolis, IN	69.44	141	118	124
140	Anchorage, AK	69.30	138	67	155
141	Bakersfield, CA	69.18	115	174	145
142	Atlanta, GA	69.06	145	164	77
143	Los Angeles, CA	68.96	128	131	149
144	Miami, FL	68.87	120	179	117
145	Birmingham, AL	68.54	126	177	135
146	Shreveport, LA	68.54	147	141	98
147	Santa Ana, CA	68.23	133	136	159
148	Charleston, WV	67.88	172	76	40
149	Austin, TX	67.86	153	82	96
150	Wilmington, DE	67.80	159	152	18
151	Baltimore, MD	67.71	148	167	57
152	Stockton, CA	67.25	146	140	140
153	Columbus, OH	67.04	161	62	41
154	Tulsa, OK	66.92	152	102	119
155	Milwaukee, WI	66.65	155	155	46
156	St. Petersburg, FL	66.29	105	105	N/A
157	Knoxville, TN	66.15	163	55	73
158	Philadelphia, PA	65.77	158	145	12
159	Seattle, WA	65.58	157	11	141
160	Newark, NJ	65.47	151	182	27
161	Tucson, AZ	64.80	170	112	58
162	Colorado Springs, CO	64.69	162	39	126
163	Oakland, CA	64.39	154	97	153
164	Dallas, TX	64.22	169	83	102
165	Kansas City, MO	63.94	156	104	137
166	Washington, DC	63.90	174	101	75
167	Denver, CO	63.70	167	41	138
168	New Orleans, LA	63.54	166	168	26
169	Las Vegas, NV	63.29	160	159	94
170	Memphis, TN	62.30	164	175	78
171	Cleveland, OH	61.50	168	181	49
172	Wichita, KS	60.99	165	100	167
173	Jackson, MS	60.75	173	160	136
174	Baton Rouge, LA	60.17	179	93	85
175	Chattanooga, TN	58.82	178	77	123
176	Orlando, FL	57.24	182	128	30
177	Little Rock, AR	57.16	177	129	147
178	Detroit, MI	56.30	180	180	37
179	Oklahoma City, OK	55.07	175	138	173
180	San Bernardino, CA	50.56	181	166	161
181	St. Louis, MO	48.85	171	162	N/A
182	Fort Lauderdale, FL	43.17	176	169	N/A

Artwork-2017-Safest-Cities-to-Live-In-v1

Ask the Experts

For the best ways to improve safety, we asked a panel of experts to weigh in with their thoughts on the following key questions:

What steps should local authorities take to help reduce the public costs associated with cleanups after major natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey? Should flood or other types of insurance be mandatory?
What measures can police departments take to increase public trust? How important is it to have a police force that is representative of the local community?
What should be the priorities for infrastructure investment under the Trump administration?
What can consumers do to increase their financial literacy, considering sound financial decisions increase a person's financial safety?

< >

Hiba Baroud Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Littlejohn Dean's Faculty Fellow at Vanderbilt University
Charles Nyce Assistant Professor of Risk Management & Insurance and Dean's Emerging Scholar in the College of Business at Florida State University
Sue Riseling Executive Director of The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA)
Chris Menton Professor of Criminal Justice at Roger Williams University

Hiba Baroud

Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Littlejohn Dean's Faculty Fellow at Vanderbilt University

What steps should local authorities take to help reduce the public costs associated with cleanups after major natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey? Should flood or other types of insurance be mandatory?

A first and critical step is to accurately estimate disaster costs in order to adequately budget for these events; government officials and the public often underestimate the impact of disasters, especially floods. In order to help reduce cleanup costs, local authorities need to coordinate with the public and private sectors, as well as local communities to leverage such resources and develop effective recovery strategies.

Requiring insurance programs in high-risk areas would ideally help in reducing the public costs associated with recovery activities. However, in some cases, these mandatory insurance programs can hurt more than help. FEMA’s National Flood Insurance program is $25 billion in debt. Heavily discounted premiums and lack of regulation on repetitive loss properties (e.g., insurance rate does not increase for properties that flooded multiple times) are encouraging homeowners to live in high-risk flood areas and repeatedly rebuild their homes after each flood. As a result, taxpayers have paid as much as 30 and 40 times the cost of houses to rebuild them. Increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events will further add to this financial burden on the public and U.S. disaster funds.

What should be the priorities for infrastructure investment under the Trump administration?

Infrastructure investment must prioritize the resilience and sustainability of these critical systems. Resilient infrastructures are able to quickly respond to and effectively recover from disruptive events. Sustainability of infrastructures, on the other hand, is a longer-term goal aimed at reducing impact on human health and the environment. We should address both our short-term needs for improving infrastructure’s ability to bounce back from disasters, while investing in long-term planning to sustain resilience and adapt to new social and environmental challenges.

Charles Nyce

Assistant Professor of Risk Management & Insurance and Dean's Emerging Scholar in the College of Business at Florida State University

There is a short answer and a long answer to this question. The short answer is no. Requiring insurance is not necessarily the answer. I believe this is a much different question than should “individuals” buy insurance for these types of events. That answer is an emphatic yes. But local authorities or municipalities face different issues and budgetary restrictions. For example, the public assistance (PA) portion of federal disaster relief is already dependent on insurance purchases. The PA portion of federal disaster assistance is reduced by how much insurance the local authority should have had. So, in essence, there already is an insurance “requirement.” Insurance is required to get the full benefit of public assistance from FEMA. In addition, local and state authorities can tax to make up budgetary shortfalls, so they have alternative sources of funds. Which most individuals do not have. So, they can spread the cost of cleanup over the entire local population, and do it over multiple years if they fund with a bond or similar instrument.

The long answer is yes, they should purchase insurance. But insurance is a risk financing tool. It helps offset a loss after it occurs. Local authorities need to do more before a loss to mitigate the potential impacts of these disasters. They need to do a better job with urban and regional planning, they need to have better growth controls in place, they need to understand the magnitude of the risk they are facing from natural disasters, and undertake more mitigation actions on preventing losses to things like water supply, power grid, hospitals, and other vital services (Puerto Rico is a recent example).

Disaster mitigation needs to be at the forefront of local authority planning in areas where natural disasters are prevalent. Insurance is the last step in managing the risk that is left over after all of the mitigation has been completed. Insurance will not really help reduce the public costs associated with these disasters. Remember, what insurance does is it replaces the variability of the rare loss with a smaller certain payment (the premium). So, purchasing insurance will spread the cost of cleanup out over the years where there were no losses, but it will not reduce the cost. Mitigation will reduce the cost.

Sue Riseling

Executive Director of The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA)

What measures can Police Departments take to increase public trust? How important is it to have a police force that is representative of the local community?

The issue of trust between police and their community is critical. The police in the United States are formed from the community and must be a key partner within the community. The department should reflect the diversity of the community when it comes to race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin and gender. However, the behavior of individuals seeking to be and who actually become law enforcement officers must be of a higher caliber than the average person in the community.

For example, those seeking careers in law enforcement should not only have clean records, they should be law-abiding. Clean driving records -- with good driving skills and habits. They must be honest -- even when it is difficult. Their skill set must be capable of setting aside their own bias and vantage point to be open-minded and compassionate toward the situations and people they encounter. There should be little to no drug use in their past, responsible alcohol use, strong academic skills, communication skills, (to include written, verbal, social media, body language, and facial expressions), the ability to reason and to get along with others. Officers or candidates must be stress tolerant, resilient, and they should be in good mental and physical health. Clearly, not all members of any community are capable of being in law enforcement.

In building trust, a police leader must ensure only the best are hired. The leader must provide solid training with clear expectations of what behavior and actions are desired and what will not be tolerated. Create department policies that are based on best practice and are open for public input and review. Strong supervision is one of the elements to a successful department and helps to build trust. Ensuring a system of accountability across the board, and also acknowledgement for a job well done. Strong evaluation programs and processes help guide officers, correct mistakes and avoid transgressions from being repeated.

Placing officers in the community on foot, on bike, in schools, in liaison with school leaders, religious leaders, business organizations, non-profits is a wonderful way to hear from the community and to distribute information as well. Having relationships with various neighborhood groups and attending their meetings -- enlisting their help with a community problem. Forming true partnerships with various constituents, by asking for their input on challenges they face, and want the assistance of the police to solve them. Mediation and negotiation require true active listening. Active listening goes a long way to understanding what the public wants and expects from the police. Without listening, even the well-intended department becomes less effective.

Making true connections with a community helps build trust. Explaining the why behind the action the public sees is also an important step toward trust. Additionally, looking for ways to de-escalate situations, defer prosecution on smaller, lesser crimes. The targeting of truly bad actors and not using a broad approach that scoops up too many good people in the net will assist in lowering the communities’ tension surrounding the police.

Chris Menton

Professor of Criminal Justice at Roger Williams University

Local authorities have their hands tied by an ethos that is inverted. For local authorities, as well as the states and federal government to provide even simple services requires adequate funding. Media controlled and manipulated by corporate interests pervade the concept that government bad. When in fact, governments properly funded by taxation are the only ones designed to put self-interest second to public interest.

Smaller nations in the developed world have much higher taxes than the United States. People in those countries complain and generally cheat on their taxes at a much higher rate than citizens in the U.S. Tax rates pushed beyond 50 percent for upper-income citizens -- for this higher funding, a plethora of services are offered to all citizens. Elderly people do not have to choose between their medication or their rent. Under the guise of personal responsibility, corporate-driven policies are squeezing all people and dismantling government.

As documents such as the Paradise Papers and the Panama Papers show, the huge hordes of super rich and corporations’ funds are hidden from taxes. Donald Trump is the president corporate America wanted. I'm confident that they're having second thoughts. Over the years, a perception of business being good, government being bad has left us in a looking glass world where what can help us is rejected (consensus) and what the can hurt us is embraced (strife).

Answers to our issues are so simple, but impossible. We rale against government, but it is the most transparent power entity. Years ago, Michael Lipsky provide solid evidence that, flawed as it is, government delivers better than any corporation when it comes to providing services.

We are in a state of flux. Our habitual nature resists change. But habit is a base function of our lower brain, it is easy. We can pull ourselves back from the abyss by becoming our better selves. Stop choking the rich with more funds. Wealth is addictive but imbalances the economy. With the tax debate, we are watching a contraindicated theory justifying the further gutting our government, and imbalance our economy.

Methodology

In order to determine the safest cities in which to live, WalletHub’s analysts compared 182 cities — including the 150 most populated U.S. cities, across three key dimensions: 1) Home & Community Safety, 2) Financial Safety, and 3) Natural-Disaster Risk.

We evaluated those dimensions using 35 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest level of safety.

We then determined each city’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its total score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample. In determining our sample, we considered only the city proper in each case, excluding cities in the surrounding metro area.

Home & Community Safety - Total Points: 50

Presence of Terrorist Attacks: Triple Weight (~8.82 Points)
Murders & Non-Negligent Manslaughters per Capita: Triple Weight (~8.82 Points)
Forcible Rapes per Capita: Full Weight (~2.94 Points)
Assaults per Capita: Full Weight (~2.94 Points)
Thefts per Capita: Full Weight (~2.94 Points)
Sex Offenders per Capita: Full Weight (~2.94 Points)
Law-Enforcement Employees per Capita: Half Weight (~1.47 Points)
Active Firefighters per Capita: Half Weight (~1.47 Points)
EMTs & Paramedics per Capita: Half weight (~1.47 Points)
Note: “EMTs” refer to Emergency Medical Technicians.
Hate Crimes per Capita: Full Weight (~2.94 Points)
Share of Sheltered Homeless: Half Weight (~1.47 Points)
Traffic Fatalities per Capita: Full Weight (~2.94 Points)
Pedestrian Fatalities per Capita: Full Weight (~2.94 Points)
Note: “Pedestrians” also includes pedacyclists.
Road Quality: Double Weight (~5.88 Points)

Natural-Disaster Risk - Total Points: 30

Earthquake Risk Level: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
Flood Risk Level: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
Hail Risk Level: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
Hurricane Storm-Surge Risk Level: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
Tornado Risk Level: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
Wildfire Risk Level: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)

Financial Safety - Total Points: 20

Unemployment Rate: Double Weight (~2.50 Points)
Underemployment Rate: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Share of Uninsured Population: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Foreclosure Rate: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Median Credit Score: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Poverty Rate: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Fraud & Other Complaints per Capita: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Note: “Other” includes both financial and nonfinancial complaints.
Identity-Theft Complaints per Capita: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Share of Unbanked Households: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Job Security: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Note: This metric was calculated as follows: (Total Workers in 2016 – Total Workers in 2015) / Total Workers in 2015
Employment Growth: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Note: This metric was adjusted for the working-age population growth and compares figures between 2016 and 2015.
Share of Households with Emergency Savings: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Note: This metric measures the percentage of households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.
Retirement Plan Access & Participation Rate: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Note: “Retirement Plan” includes only employer-based plans.
Personal Bankruptcy Filings per Capita: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Share of Underwater Homes: Full Weight (~1.25 Points)
Note: “Underwater” describes homes with negative equity.

Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Bureau of Investigation, TransUnion, Parents for Megan’s Law, U.S. Fire Administration, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Wm. Robert Johnston, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Chmura Economics & Analytics, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Road Information Program, Renwood RealtyTrac, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Zillow and ATTOM Data Solutions.

Was this article helpful?

Awesome! Thanks for your feedback.

Thank you for your feedback.

Disclaimer: Editorial and user-generated content is not provided or commissioned by financial institutions. Opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and have not been approved or otherwise endorsed by any financial institution, including those that are WalletHub advertising partners. Our content is intended for informational purposes only, and we encourage everyone to respect our content guidelines. Please keep in mind that it is not a financial institution’s responsibility to ensure all posts and questions are answered.

Ad Disclosure: Certain offers that appear on this site originate from paying advertisers, and this will be noted on an offer’s details page using the designation "Sponsored", where applicable. Advertising may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). At WalletHub we try to present a wide array of offers, but our offers do not represent all financial services companies or products.

@wallethub_4

December 20, 2017

This study needs to be done at a metro-area level. City-level rankings are next to useless.

@slip1988

Next time you may actually want to involve a company that measures geographic risk. None of the companies you've listed actually do. The lack of Florida and other south coast states - and the over-inclusion of California cities is simply startling.

ANDREY FYODOROV @fyodorov

December 19, 2017

You've lost your marbles. Fort Lauderdale the least safe city?

Michael Talley @TallMon

December 18, 2017

How can Corpus Christie be the third safest regarding natural disasters? Was this analysis before Hurricane Harvey? Even if it were, it's a coastal city and the risk of hurricanes always exists.

Jonathan Smith @JESmith

December 8, 2017

Disagree completely on ranking Plano, TX so high. I've been a victim of crime there and I know many, many others who have as well. Somebody played with their numbers to keep Toyota happy.