Safety score
Personal safety, institutional trust, and resilience signals informed by international safety and crime data.
Safety in Lincoln59/100
Safety
Safety in Lincoln
Lincoln's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. Safety in Lincoln scores 59/100, placing it in the early-stage group of the indexed set.
- Last updated
- 2026-05-16
- Data year
- 2025
- Module score
- 59/100
Safety framing
Directional indicator
Safety framing blends violent-crime context, resident perception, and institutional response capacity into a directional orientation.
Verified utility layer
See country emergency profile
Verified country-level emergency contacts attach via the country hub where official publishers have been integrated.
Verified local dataset
Pending integration
Source-backed safety metrics will appear when the platform integrates verified city-level data.
Lincoln safety data table
This HTML table mirrors the visible score cards so important comparison data is never trapped in a browser-only chart.
| Metric | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Safety framing | Directional indicator | Use this section as context, not an official measurement. |
| Verified utility layer | See country emergency profile | Where no verified profile exists, the platform shows a transparent fallback rather than guessed values. |
| Verified local dataset | Pending integration | Transparent fallback is shown until then. |
Safety city comparison
A crawlable comparison across a selection of same-country and top-scoring cities. The complete set is reachable via the rankings, the cities index, and each city profile.
| City | Score | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Lincoln (this page) | 59/100 | Lincoln's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Seattle | 78/100 | Seattle has solid overall safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Boston | 78/100 | Boston's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Washington DC | 77/100 | Washington DC's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| San Diego | 76/100 | San Diego's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Portland | 76/100 | Portland's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Denver | 75/100 | Denver's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Minneapolis | 75/100 | Minneapolis's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Madison | 75/100 | Madison's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| New York | 74/100 | New York is mid-pack on safety: violent-crime context has improved over decades but property and incident pressure remain present in dense areas. |
| Philadelphia | 74/100 | Philadelphia's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Raleigh | 74/100 | Raleigh's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Pittsburgh | 73/100 | Pittsburgh's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Boulder | 73/100 | Boulder's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| San Francisco | 72/100 | San Francisco has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; violent-crime context is comparatively low and property-related risks are visible. |
| Chicago | 72/100 | Chicago has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; central districts and the Loop are widely stable for daily life. |
| Nashville | 72/100 | Nashville's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Charlotte | 72/100 | Charlotte's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Salt Lake City | 72/100 | Salt Lake City's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Austin | 71/100 | Austin's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Columbus | 71/100 | Columbus's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Indianapolis | 71/100 | Indianapolis's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Kansas City | 71/100 | Kansas City's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Cincinnati | 71/100 | Cincinnati's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Los Angeles | 70/100 | Los Angeles has mid-tier safety with strong neighborhood variation; resident experience differs widely across districts. |
| Atlanta | 70/100 | Atlanta's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Dallas | 69/100 | Dallas's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Orlando | 69/100 | Orlando's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| St. Louis | 69/100 | St. Louis's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Milwaukee | 69/100 | Milwaukee's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Cleveland | 69/100 | Cleveland's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
Interpretation
Safety scoring blends violent-crime context, perceived safety, and institutional response capacity. Verified country emergency profiles attach where available. Across the indexed cities the safety average is 62/100, so Lincoln is 3 points below the median. Data year 2025; last updated 2026-05-16. Drawn from 4 institutional references.
Read this module with the main open the lincoln city profile and the read the scoring methodology page so single-topic pages do not hide tradeoffs across dimensions.
Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation. Verified datasets are being integrated; official sources should be used for critical decisions.
Sources
4 institutional references inform this view, listed below with reliability notes. Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation; verified datasets are being integrated and official sources should be used for critical decisions.
- UN-Habitat: World Cities Report 2024
Used as a policy and methodology reference for urban exposure and resilience signals.
- US Environmental Protection Agency: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Used where United States city comparisons need air-quality benchmark context.
- NASA: NASA POWER
Used as an energy-resource and weather-normalization reference.
- IPCC: AR6 WGII Chapter 6: Cities, settlements and key infrastructure
Used to explain urban climate vulnerability and adaptation scoring logic.
Continue exploring
These links connect module pages back to city, ranking, and sibling topic paths with crawlable href values.
Lincoln city profile
Return to the complete Lincoln profile with all module scores and source context.
Cost of Living in Lincoln
Affordability, essential costs, and day-to-day financial pressure for residents.
Air Quality in Lincoln
Health-oriented air-quality conditions with context from WHO, EEA, and EPA benchmarks.
Energy in Lincoln
Clean-energy readiness, grid resilience, and solar or efficiency opportunity signals.
Internet Speed in Lincoln
Broadband and mobile connectivity quality, latency, and digital-readiness signals for residents and remote workers.
Climate Risk in Lincoln
Climate exposure, hazard frequency, and adaptation context for floods, heat, storms, and wildfires.
Overall Intelligence
A balanced ranking of cities across affordability, air quality, clean-energy readiness, and resilience.
Quality of Life
Cities that combine strong services, mobility, safety, clean air, and resilience into a healthy day-to-day profile.