Americans Rate Dallas and Boston Safest of 16 U.S. Cities
By: Megan Brenan (Gallup. com)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Of 16 large U.S. cities, Americans are most likely to consider Dallas and Boston as safe to live in or visit and are least likely to say Detroit and Chicago are safe.
In addition to the nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults who think Dallas (74%) and Boston (72%) are safe, majorities ranging from 52% to 63% rate nine other cities as safe. These include Seattle, Las Vegas, Miami, Minneapolis, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
Along with Detroit (26%) and Chicago (27%), less than half of Americans say Philadelphia (47%), New York (41%) and Los Angeles (41%) are safe. Except for Philadelphia, which is seen as unsafe by half of U.S. adults, these other five cities receive majority-level unsafe ratings.
Partisanship Is Key Differentiator in Perceptions of U.S. Cities' Safety
U.S. adults' partisanship greatly affects their views of the safety of most of the cities included in the July 3-27 Gallup poll. With the exception of Dallas and Miami, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are substantially more likely than Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to perceive each city as safe. On average, the party gap today across the 16 cities is 29 percentage points, much greater than the two-point gap in the 2006 poll.
Majorities of Democrats consider all but two of the cities -- Chicago and Detroit -- to be safe places to live in or visit. In contrast, majorities of Republicans view just five cities as safe -- Las Vegas, Miami, Dallas, Boston and Houston. Democrats are most likely to perceive Seattle and Boston as safe, while Boston and Dallas top the list among Republicans.
There are no significant differences by gender or annual household income and minimal gaps by age, urbanicity and education level, with young adults, urban residents and college graduates rating cities safer than their counterparts.
Differences in Perceptions of City Safety Compared With 2006
The latest poll marks the seventh time that Gallup has gauged Americans' views of the safety of 14 of the 16 cities since 1990. Las Vegas and New Orleans were only included once before - in 2006, the last time all of the cities were measured. In 2006, nine of the cities were considered safe by majorities of Americans, and 11 hold that distinction today.
Several cities are now much more likely to be considered safe than in 2006 -- New Orleans, Miami, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. At the same time, Americans are significantly less likely than they were in 2006 to say Chicago, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Seattle are safe.
New Orleans' safe rating has doubled from the 2006 reading, taken a year after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the city. Meanwhile, Americans' perceptions of Miami as a safe city have gradually grown from 17% in 1990 to the latest 59%, which is its first majority-level rating. Washington, up 30 points since 1990, is also viewed as safe by a majority for the first time. Los Angeles' current 41% safe rating is its highest to date and up 15 points since 1990.
Custom graphic. Four line charts showing the percentage saying each of three cities is safe: Miami, Washington, and Los Angeles.
On the other end of the spectrum, Chicago's current 27% safe rating is down 20 points from 2006 but was similarly low in 1990. Between 1990 and 2001, Americans' perception of Chicago as a safe city rose to 53%, where it remained until it fell slightly in 2006.
Views of safety in San Francisco, Minneapolis and Seattle have all dropped precipitously since 2006 -- from 15 to 18 points. These three cities, along with Chicago, have seen increases in crime in recent years. In 2006, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Seattle ranked among the highest in terms of perceived safety.
Custom graphic. Four line charts showing the percentage saying each of four cities is safe: Chicago, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Seattle.
The drops in perceptions of safety between 2006 and now for these four cities are largely explained by sharp decreases in Republicans' safe ratings, while Democrats' ratings have been relatively stable.
Bottom Line
Americans are most inclined to view Dallas and Boston as safe cities and least likely to perceive Chicago and Detroit as safe. While Dallas and Boston have consistently enjoyed majority-level safe ratings throughout Gallup's trends, Chicago has not since the early 2000s, and Detroit has never been considered safe by a majority.
Perceptions of city safety are heavily influenced by partisanship, which was not a factor in 2006. Views of cities' safety also reflect recent trends in crime statistics. High-profile public situations -- such as the 2020 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, the creation of the autonomous zone in Seattle and a heavy focus on gun violence in Chicago -- most likely have affected views of crime in those cities.
Tags
Who is online
489 visitors
You have to live in a place to know.
Vic, I would have to agree with you have to live there to know. I don't think that this one poll is the be all and end all. For instance, I found this poll that says differently:
Here is their list of actual safest cities:
1.
Honolulu, HI
$528
2.
Virginia Beach, VA
$550
3.
Henderson, NV
$805
4.
El Paso, TX
$837
5.
New York, NY
$863
6.
San Diego, CA
$963
7.
Mesa, AZ
$1,069
8.
Charlotte, NC
$1,073
9.
San Jose, CA
$1,106
10.
Boston, MA
$1,119
11.
Raleigh, NC
$1,149
12.
Arlington, TX
$1,264
13.
Santa Ana, CA
$1,416
14.
Omaha, NE
$1,503
15.
Austin, TX
$1,577
btw, the most visited city in the US:
Apparently, people still go to any of these cities, despite their perceptions.
It's only a poll, but I happen to agree with it. The safety this country once took for granted is gone and it didn't need to happen. Right now the rampant crime is in blue cities where criminals are not punished and police departments have been emasculated, but it will eventually hit the safer cities as well.
Your list is for a crime cost per capita for the richest city in the US?? What price is murder? rape? assault? or are they only counting property crimes?
The City with the largest per capita income still didn't finish first.
Vic,
I'm sorry, but I don't view everything as blue or red. Btw, Boston is a blue city, and on your list.
And again, this is just a perception. It has no real baring on wether or not people are going to these cities.
Perrie,
What crimes and how many crimes were actually committed in each city?
In what areas of the city were crimes committed?
That information would give a better picture of where cities are "safe" and the places to best avoid.
Even in rural areas, the locals avoid places and people that are known to be dangerous or potentially dangerous.
Numbers can be very deceiving depending on how the data is calculated.
Some headlines on crime in NYC.
and
and Dallas in 2022
Can't agree with this more, Chicago gets a bad rap for crime, but 80% of the crime happens is 20% of the city and the tourists spots are safe.
I don’t think that’s as true as it was. The gang stuff stays where it can be avoided but the car jackings, armed robbery and street crime now happen everywhere along with the random teen age flash mobs/organized looting that take place in the the middle of the magnificent mile.
Only makes sense that the criminal gangs would move to where the reward is highest when laws are selectively or not enforced due to the public sympathy for the criminals.
Why do these criminals deserve sympathy? Are they mentally ill? Greedy? Narcissistic? What is the criminal mindset that needs to be understood and addressed so all areas of the US are safe?
So you go from:
To:
The poll in your article is about the perception of crime, not the actual crimes or costs of crimes. The article that Perrie posted is about the actual cost of crimes per capita. The fact that these two are different helps display the difference between perception and reality.
So someone burns down your house, value $350K and there are five occupants. That is $70K "per capita". But it was you and your significant other that occupied the house. That goes up to $175K per capita. It is STILL $350K worth of crime. The per capita bullshit I have never gotten. $1million in crime for 250K people is $4 each. That same $1million for a town of 10K people is $100 "per capita". But it is STILL $1Million in crime due to some jerk burning down the local Holiday Inn.
I would never live in a $350,000 house.
Per capita is a way of making actual data points instead of just waving one's hands in the air. Is it perfect? No. I do not know if the dollar figures in the article that Perrie posted were adjusted or not, but usually, a per capita number takes the total number of people in a region and divides the dollar amount of crimes into that number, giving $/person. It is a starting point along with the crime rate which is usually given as the number of crimes per some number of people. There is that per capita thing again.
Bluer than NYC, but a different kind of blue. Boston does not have the same makeup in it's neighborhoods. The Boston Police Department was never defunded and for most of it's citizens the police are still the first line of defense.
And again, this is just a perception.
I don't think so. New Yorkers have left the city in droves.
It has no real baring on wether or not people are going to these cities.
Public safety ranks right up there with employment when it comes to choosing where to live.
You know better than that. Why are looters allowed to loot in California?
Good point. Boston really doesn't have neighborhoods like that.
I'm not sure you have the right comment in there.
It appears to be a quote of Perrie's comment.
Any city ruled and run by progressives should not considered to be safe.
Soros wants the justice system to be destroyed and rebuilt.
Boston is on the list. It's blue.
It's professional class blue not inner-city minority blue!
Thars the difference!
Crime in Boston :
Biden addresses the situation: