Is Great Falls, MT Safe? 2026 Crime Rates & Safety Report

What drives Great Falls's safety score?

Great Falls ranks in the middle half of the 3 jurisdictions in the current scored comparison set in Montana, ahead of approximately 33% of that scored set. The profile uses a reporting population of 60,412 and source-year data through 2025; it is a citywide agency-level comparison, not a neighborhood forecast.

The strongest of the three score components is Community Order at 45.32, while Property Security is lowest at 15.06. The 30.26-point spread shows why the composite should be read by component instead of as a single absolute claim about safety.

Among the five public offense indicators, Larceny-theft is highest relative to its national reference at 3049.06 per 100,000 (2.75× the national rate). Robbery is lowest on the same relative basis at 33.11 per 100,000 (0.69× national). These comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized jurisdictions can be compared consistently.

Coverage check: 18 of 18 tracked offense classes have reportable values in this profile. Missing values are not converted to zero. See the methodology and coverage report before reuse.

How to read the Great Falls crime-rate profile

This page is the city-level detail within the Montana safety directory. It is designed for a narrower question than “is Great Falls safe?”: how does the reported rate profile for this jurisdiction compare with its state cohort and the national references shown in the tables? The current profile shows a Safety Atlas score of 35.37, rank #2 of 3 jurisdictions in the current scored comparison set, and a displayed overall trajectory of stable.

Those values are a research starting point, not a promise about personal safety. The profile uses a reporting population of 60,412 and source data through 2025. A citywide reported-rate comparison cannot describe every neighborhood, block, household, or future event. Use the score to decide what to inspect next, then use the offense table and coverage note to support a specific claim.

What to compare before drawing a conclusion

Start with rates, not raw incident counts. A large jurisdiction can have more reported incidents than a smaller one while still having a lower rate per 100,000 residents. Safety Atlas normalizes the public indicators so readers can compare differently sized places, then places the city within the Montana cohort. That makes the rank useful for orientation, but it does not make a composite score more important than the offense category relevant to the reader’s question.

The component view adds needed context. In this profile, Community Order is the strongest score component and Property Security is the weakest. A buyer concerned about property exposure, a reporter researching a violent-offense trend, and a relocation researcher may therefore arrive at different conclusions from the same city page. The responsible approach is to state which reported rate or component was compared and avoid reducing the result to a blanket label.

Coverage, trend, and source-year checks

This report has 18 of 18 tracked offense classes with reportable values. Missing data is not converted to zero. That prevents a false appearance of lower crime when a field is unavailable, but it also means that two profiles may have different completeness. Before comparing Great Falls with another place, check the reporting coverage and source year on both pages. The displayed trajectory compares weighted reporting periods; it should be described as a change in reported data, not a forecast.

Changes in reporting rates can have several explanations, including incident patterns, agency participation, reporting completeness, classification practices, or changes in the population base. The public profile makes its source and method visible so a reader can check those limits. For methodology, definitions, and the treatment of missing values, read the Safety Atlas methodology and the 2026 coverage report.

A practical Great Falls research workflow

1. Use the score and comparison-set rank to identify the appropriate comparison cohort.
2. Read the five public offense indicators and compare each rate with its national reference.
3. Check the source year, reporting coverage, and the note that rates describe a citywide jurisdiction.
4. Open the Montana directory to compare city peers on the same published framework.
5. For a neighborhood-specific, housing, or emergency-planning decision, add local government and community sources rather than treating this profile as the only evidence.

For citation or analysis, retain the city name, MT identifier, source year, and the reported-rate limitation. That makes the comparison reproducible and prevents a statistical index from being misrepresented as a guarantee. Related reading: the crime-risk data checklist and the US safety directory.