Area Safety Data

State hub ยท CO

Colorado property crime city data

Validated city-level FBI NIBRS selected property-offense pages for Colorado. This page summarizes candidate cities in the dataset; it is not a statewide crime-rate claim.

Candidate-city rate 32.35 per 1,000 residents across listed cities; not a statewide risk score
Validated cities70Current candidate pages
Candidate population4,081,805Sum of listed city estimates
Selected offenses132,048FBI NIBRS offense records

Highest-rate city candidates

Use the city pages for source notes, trend handling, and offense mix. Small or ambiguous places remain outside automatic publication.

14,027 residents Lone Tree 111.64 selected property offenses per 1,000 residents 6,953 residents La Junta 70.19 selected property offenses per 1,000 residents 6,010 residents Sheridan 68.89 selected property offenses per 1,000 residents 35,701 residents Englewood 53.14 selected property offenses per 1,000 residents 111,348 residents Pueblo 50.91 selected property offenses per 1,000 residents 157,395 residents Lakewood 50.76 selected property offenses per 1,000 residents

Colorado city candidates

City Population Selected offenses Rate per 1,000 Trend
Lone Tree 14,027 1,566 111.64 Increasing
La Junta 6,953 488 70.19 Increasing
Sheridan 6,010 414 68.89 Decreasing
Englewood 35,701 1,897 53.14 Decreasing
Pueblo 111,348 5,669 50.91 Decreasing
Lakewood 157,395 7,990 50.76 Roughly stable
Alamosa 9,903 479 48.37 Roughly stable
Denver 741,591 34,522 46.55 Decreasing
Wheat Ridge 32,086 1,446 45.07 Decreasing
Glenwood Springs 10,423 468 44.90 Increasing
Gunnison 6,856 260 37.92 Increasing
Colorado Springs 492,455 17,777 36.10 Roughly stable
Westminster 116,293 4,175 35.90 Decreasing
Delta 9,698 320 33.00 Decreasing
Grand Junction 70,588 2,311 32.74 Mixed
Aurora 408,325 12,617 30.90 Decreasing
Trinidad 8,178 251 30.69 Decreasing
Greeley 114,771 3,514 30.62 Roughly stable
Johnstown 20,697 628 30.34 Decreasing
Breckenridge 5,026 151 30.04 Roughly stable
Aspen 6,598 196 29.71 Mixed
Cortez 9,105 270 29.65 Roughly stable
Longmont 99,600 2,951 29.63 Roughly stable
Sterling 13,059 384 29.41 Decreasing
Avon 5,945 174 29.27 Increasing
Boulder 106,557 3,118 29.26 Decreasing
Thornton 148,370 4,304 29.01 Decreasing
Lafayette 30,527 840 27.52 Roughly stable
Brighton 43,982 1,136 25.83 Decreasing
Northglenn 38,726 997 25.74 Decreasing
Arvada 122,310 3,127 25.57 Decreasing
Littleton 45,427 1,147 25.25 Decreasing
Golden 20,201 494 24.45 Decreasing
Montrose 21,608 480 22.21 Decreasing
Fort Collins 170,727 3,749 21.96 Roughly stable
Federal Heights 14,139 304 21.50 Decreasing
Loveland 80,976 1,672 20.65 Roughly stable
Fort Morgan 11,826 236 19.96 Decreasing
Silverthorne 5,371 106 19.74 Decreasing
Broomfield 78,403 1,518 19.36 Decreasing
Centennial 109,812 2,109 19.21 Decreasing
Fountain 29,430 551 18.72 Decreasing
Louisville 20,754 385 18.55 Decreasing
Monument 13,374 243 18.17 Roughly stable
Parker 65,216 1,078 16.53 Mixed
Evans 22,504 372 16.53 Decreasing
Fort Lupton 9,973 155 15.54 Decreasing
Craig 9,004 137 15.22 Decreasing
Steamboat Springs 13,747 173 12.58 Roughly stable
Woodland Park 8,018 89 11.10 Decreasing
Rifle 10,756 110 10.23 Decreasing
Firestone 19,452 197 10.13 Decreasing
Timnath 10,825 105 9.70 Decreasing
Castle Rock 83,004 802 9.66 Decreasing
Mead 6,757 63 9.32 Increasing
Erie 38,674 346 8.95 Decreasing
Estes Park 5,793 48 8.29 Mixed
Lochbuie 8,626 70 8.12 Mixed
Dacono 6,802 55 8.09 Decreasing
Eaton 5,863 47 8.02 Increasing
Fruita 13,930 110 7.90 Decreasing
Frederick 18,011 123 6.83 Increasing
Carbondale 6,828 46 6.74 Roughly stable
Salida 6,010 37 6.16 Decreasing
Eagle 7,388 41 5.55 Decreasing
Windsor 41,877 232 5.54 Roughly stable
Milliken 9,138 50 5.47 Increasing
Severance 11,609 63 5.43 Increasing
Lamar 7,611 39 5.12 Decreasing
Gypsum 9,238 26 2.81 Decreasing

Important context

These figures are based on reported selected property offenses and Census population context for validated city candidates. Agency reporting boundaries can differ from municipal boundaries, so the methodology page explains why ambiguous or tiny-denominator rows stay out of automatic publication.

Read methodology