Home Page

Press Releases

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which State Is The Most Dangerous?

Which State Is The Safest?

News Media Link

See Rankings Below or Click on These Links for More Information:

  Click Here for the Complete

2003 Most Dangerous/Safest State Publication

Safest Order | Award Rankings 1994 to 2003

Methodology | Press Release | About Us | MQ Home

"1" is Most Dangerous, "50" is Safest

2003 MOST DANGEROUS STATE

ALPHA ORDER

RANK ORDER
2003 RANK STATE SUM 2002 RANK CHANGE 2003 RANK STATE SUM 2002 RANK CHANGE
20 Alabama 1.21 17 3   1 Louisiana 36.27 1 0
8 Alaska 20.29 11 -3   2 Nevada 35.29 7 -5
3 Arizona 35.00 5 -2   3 Arizona 35.00 5 -2
23 Arkansas -10.69 22 1   4 Florida 33.72 2 2
12 California 13.85 13 -1   5 Maryland 33.50 4 1
25 Colorado -12.75 30 -5   6 Tennessee 31.85 6 0
36 Connecticut -31.99 37 -1   7 New Mexico 26.57 3 4
19 Delaware 2.13 12 7   8 Alaska 20.29 11 -3
4 Florida 33.72 2 2   9 Michigan 18.22 9 0
15 Georgia 5.95 16 -1   10 Texas 16.30 14 -4
26 Hawaii -15.91 28 -2   11 South Carolina 14.44 8 3
42 Idaho -44.47 46 -4   12 California 13.85 13 -1
13 Illinois 12.56 10 3   13 Illinois 12.56 10 3
24 Indiana -11.03 26 -2   14 Mississippi 9.39 20 -6
43 Iowa -47.82 44 -1   15 Georgia 5.95 16 -1
28 Kansas -18.34 23 5   16 North Carolina 5.37 15 1
35 Kentucky -31.30 35 0   17 Missouri 3.93 21 -4
1 Louisiana 36.27 1 0   18 Oklahoma 3.84 19 -1
48 Maine -59.84 49 -1   19 Delaware 2.13 12 7
5 Maryland 33.50 4 1   20 Alabama 1.21 17 3
31 Massachusetts -20.05 32 -1   21 Washington -1.05 18 3
9 Michigan 18.22 9 0   22 Ohio -8.76 25 -3
34 Minnesota -30.15 34 0   23 Arkansas -10.69 22 1
14 Mississippi 9.39 20 -6   24 Indiana -11.03 26 -2
17 Missouri 3.93 21 -4   25 Colorado -12.75 30 -5
41 Montana -42.21 42 -1   26 Hawaii -15.91 28 -2
39 Nebraska -33.46 36 3   27 Rhode Island -15.94 27 0
2 Nevada 35.29 7 -5   28 Kansas -18.34 23 5
46 New Hampshire -52.39 43 3   29 New York -18.70 24 5
32 New Jersey -21.18 33 -1   30 Pennsylvania -19.99 31 -1
7 New Mexico 26.57 3 4   31 Massachusetts -20.05 32 -1
29 New York -18.70 24 5   32 New Jersey -21.18 33 -1
16 North Carolina 5.37 15 1   33 Oregon -22.43 30 3
49 North Dakota -65.57 50 -1   34 Minnesota -30.15 34 0
22 Ohio -8.76 25 -3   35 Kentucky -31.30 35 0
18 Oklahoma 3.84 19 -1   36 Connecticut -31.99 37 -1
33 Oregon -22.43 30 3   37 Utah -32.38 39 -2
30 Pennsylvania -19.99 31 -1   38 Virginia -32.48 38 0
27 Rhode Island -15.94 27 0   39 Nebraska -33.46 36 3
11 South Carolina 14.44 8 3   40 Wisconsin -40.73 40 0
47 South Dakota -53.23 47 0   41 Montana -42.21 42 -1
6 Tennessee 31.85 6 0   42 Idaho -44.47 46 -4
10 Texas 16.30 14 -4   43 Iowa -47.82 44 -1
37 Utah -32.38 39 -2   44 Wyoming -48.95 45 -1
50 Vermont -65.63 48 2   45 West Virginia -49.31 41 4
38 Virginia -32.48 38 0   46 New Hampshire -52.39 43 3
21 Washington -1.05 18 3   47 South Dakota -53.23 47 0
45 West Virginia -49.31 41 4   48 Maine -59.84 49 -1
40 Wisconsin -40.73 40 0   49 North Dakota -65.57 50 -1
44 Wyoming -48.95 45 -1   50 Vermont -65.63 48 2
METHODOLOGY: The Most Dangerous State 2003 rankings are determined by a four step process. First, rates for six crime categories — murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft — are plugged into a formula that measures how a state compares to the national average for a given crime category.

Second, the outcome of this equation is then multiplied by a weight assigned to each crime category. For this year’s award, we again gave each crime category equal weight. Thus state comparisons are based purely on crime rates and how these rates stack up to the national average for a given crime category.

Third, the weighted numbers are added together to achieve state’s score ("SUM.") In the fourth and final step, these composite scores are ranked from highest to lowest to determine which states are the most dangerous and safest. Thus the farther below the national average a state’s crime rate is, the lower (and safer) it ranks. The farther above the national average, the higher (and more dangerous) a state ranks in the final list.

A Word About Crime Rankings

 Morgan Quitno’s annual rankings of crime in states, metro areas and cities are considered by some in the law enforcement community as controversial.  The FBI and many criminologists caution against rankings according to crime rates.  They correctly point out that crime levels are affected by many different factors, such as population density, composition of the population (particularly the concentration of youth), climate, economic conditions, strength of local law enforcement agencies, citizen’s attitudes toward crime, cultural factors, education levels, crime reporting practices of citizens and family cohesiveness.  Accordingly, crime rankings often are deemed “simplistic” or “incomplete.” 

 However, this criticism is largely based on the fact that there are reasons for the differences in crime rates, not that the rates are incompatible.  This would be somewhat akin to deciding not to compare athletes on their speed in the 100-yard dash because of physical or training differences.  Such differences help explain the different speeds but do not invalidate the comparisons.

 To be sure, crime-ranking information must be considered carefully.  However the rankings tell not only an interesting, but also very important story regarding the incidence of crime in the United States.  Furthermore, annual rankings not only allow for comparisons among different states and cities, but also enable leaders to track their communities’ crime trends from one year to the next.

 We certainly do not want to be irresponsible in our presentation of state and city crime data.  Our publications help concerned Americans learn how their communities fare in the fight against crime.  The first step in making our cities and states safer is to understand the true magnitude of their crime problems.  This will only be achieved through straightforward data that all of us can use and understand.

                                                                                                 THE EDITORS