Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

White Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
CI*Rank ⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Russell County Urban No 218.7 (197.6, 241.6) 1 (1, 15) 83 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Greene County Urban No 200.7 (119.3, 330.1) 2 (1, 67) 5 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.3, 3.8)
Crenshaw County Rural No 199.5 (167.3, 236.9) 3 (1, 56) 29 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.6, 1.7)
Lawrence County Urban No 197.3 (177.4, 219.1) 4 (1, 35) 75 stable stable trend -0.5 (-10.3, 5.6)
Cleburne County Rural No 192.6 (166.4, 222.2) 5 (1, 53) 40 stable stable trend 11.3 (-0.9, 20.8)
Escambia County Rural No 192.1 (171.3, 214.9) 6 (1, 45) 67 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Jackson County Rural No 190.3 (176.0, 205.6) 7 (1, 35) 140 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Franklin County Rural No 187.6 (167.7, 209.5) 8 (1, 49) 68 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Cherokee County Rural No 186.9 (167.3, 208.6) 9 (1, 46) 72 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.6)
Etowah County Urban No 186.8 (175.9, 198.4) 10 (2, 32) 231 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Walker County Urban No 186.3 (173.3, 200.2) 11 (2, 38) 160 falling falling trend -3.0 (-7.6, -1.3)
Calhoun County Urban No 186.0 (175.0, 197.6) 12 (3, 34) 227 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
Covington County Rural No 185.7 (169.0, 203.9) 13 (2, 44) 97 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.0, -0.1)
Chilton County Urban No 185.2 (168.2, 203.6) 14 (2, 46) 92 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Pike County Rural No 182.1 (158.3, 208.9) 15 (1, 59) 45 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.3)
Clarke County Rural No 181.0 (154.9, 211.1) 16 (1, 61) 38 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 1.2)
Clay County Rural No 180.9 (154.2, 211.7) 17 (1, 61) 34 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.2)
Talladega County Rural No 179.6 (166.3, 193.9) 18 (3, 45) 145 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.3)
Marion County Rural No 178.5 (160.9, 197.8) 19 (2, 53) 78 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Chambers County Rural No 177.0 (156.4, 200.0) 20 (2, 58) 58 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.3)
Fayette County Rural No 176.8 (151.5, 205.6) 21 (1, 62) 37 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.7)
Lamar County Rural No 174.4 (148.5, 204.2) 22 (1, 62) 34 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Barbour County Rural No 173.9 (148.8, 203.1) 23 (1, 62) 37 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.4)
Dale County Rural No 172.4 (156.3, 189.9) 24 (4, 57) 88 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Geneva County Urban No 171.3 (152.0, 192.9) 25 (3, 61) 60 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 0.8)
Blount County Urban No 171.3 (158.1, 185.4) 26 (7, 54) 130 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
Marshall County Rural No 171.2 (160.3, 182.7) 27 (9, 52) 196 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Dallas County Rural No 170.7 (143.4, 202.9) 28 (1, 64) 33 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Coosa County Rural No 170.4 (138.4, 209.7) 29 (1, 65) 22 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.7, 0.4)
Bibb County Urban No 170.0 (147.2, 195.7) 30 (2, 63) 41 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.2)
Mobile County Urban No 169.7 (163.4, 176.2) 31 (17, 45) 577 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.0)
Pickens County Urban No 169.0 (142.2, 200.4) 32 (2, 64) 29 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.8)
Butler County Rural No 166.4 (138.6, 199.1) 33 (2, 64) 28 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.3)
St. Clair County Urban No 166.2 (155.5, 177.6) 34 (14, 55) 185 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Tallapoosa County Rural No 166.2 (149.5, 184.6) 35 (6, 61) 84 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Elmore County Urban No 166.0 (154.1, 178.7) 36 (13, 58) 150 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Hale County Urban No 165.7 (129.0, 210.9) 37 (1, 66) 15 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.2, -0.3)
Winston County Rural No 164.5 (145.6, 185.5) 38 (6, 62) 59 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3)
Macon County Urban No 163.9 (117.2, 226.8) 39 (1, 67) 9 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.9, 2.0)
Colbert County Urban No 163.9 (150.5, 178.3) 40 (13, 60) 116 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
Henry County Urban No 163.7 (139.3, 191.9) 41 (3, 64) 35 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.2)
Conecuh County Rural No 163.6 (128.6, 207.5) 42 (1, 67) 18 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.5, 0.1)
DeKalb County Rural No 163.1 (150.9, 176.1) 43 (16, 59) 141 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Randolph County Rural No 162.5 (141.3, 186.6) 44 (5, 63) 46 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Choctaw County Rural No 160.0 (130.6, 195.7) 45 (2, 66) 21 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.1, 0.5)
Morgan County Urban No 158.0 (148.7, 167.9) 46 (24, 60) 225 falling falling trend -6.4 (-10.3, -1.5)
Jefferson County Urban No 157.0 (152.0, 162.2) 47 (33, 57) 761 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Lee County Urban No 156.8 (147.1, 167.0) 48 (26, 61) 202 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.6)
Montgomery County Urban No 155.9 (145.9, 166.6) 49 (26, 61) 199 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Houston County Urban No 155.9 (145.4, 167.0) 50 (26, 62) 174 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
Cullman County Rural No 155.7 (145.5, 166.5) 51 (26, 62) 184 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -1.0)
Monroe County Rural No 155.1 (129.8, 185.0) 52 (5, 66) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Coffee County Rural No 155.0 (140.3, 171.1) 53 (19, 63) 83 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Sumter County Rural No 153.2 (95.0, 234.4) 54 (1, 67) 6 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.6, 1.0)
Autauga County Urban No 152.8 (138.9, 167.8) 55 (23, 64) 92 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.5)
Washington County Rural No 151.0 (125.0, 181.6) 56 (6, 67) 25 falling falling trend -3.2 (-10.7, -1.2)
Lowndes County Urban No 148.6 (106.5, 210.6) 57 (1, 67) 8 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.9, -0.1)
Lauderdale County Urban No 147.5 (137.8, 157.9) 58 (37, 64) 183 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.7, -0.1)
Baldwin County Urban No 147.5 (141.4, 153.8) 59 (43, 63) 478 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Limestone County Urban No 146.9 (136.8, 157.7) 60 (37, 64) 162 falling falling trend -1.9 (-5.0, -1.0)
Madison County Urban No 146.7 (141.0, 152.6) 61 (45, 63) 521 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.1)
Wilcox County Rural No 145.3 (103.2, 205.7) 62 (1, 67) 9 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.3, 1.6)
Marengo County Rural No 130.2 (105.8, 159.9) 63 (24, 67) 21 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 0.1)
Tuscaloosa County Urban No 129.5 (121.8, 137.5) 64 (58, 67) 222 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.0, -2.0)
Shelby County Urban Yes 120.1 (113.8, 126.6) 65 (61, 67) 288 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.6, -1.5)
Perry County Rural Yes 119.6 (81.2, 181.0) 66 (7, 67) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.1, 1.2)
Bullock County Rural Yes 100.4 (63.5, 164.4) 67 (23, 67) 4 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.7, 1.4)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/23/2026 8:18 am.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

† Death data provided by the National Vital Statistics System public use data file. Death rates calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Death rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.

The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.

⋔ Results presented with the CI*Rank statistics help show the usefulness of ranks. For example, ranks for relatively rare diseases or less populated areas may be essentially meaningless because of their large variability, but ranks for more common diseases in densely populated regions can be very useful. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

Φ Rural–urban county classifications are based on the 2023 USDA Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (except for Connecticut Counties which use 2013 codes). State-level cancer rates for rural areas are calculated using cancer cases registered exclusively in rural counties, while state-level cancer rates for urban areas are calculated using cases registered exclusively in urban counties.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top