Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Illinois by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Count

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
Illinois N/A No 149.7 (148.8, 150.6) N/A 23,690 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.7)
United States N/A No 145.4 (145.2, 145.6) N/A 605,771 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.2)
Brown County Rural No 139.0 (103.0, 184.1) 95 (5, 102) 10 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.1, 0.7)
Pope County Rural No 161.1 (120.4, 217.0) 69 (2, 102) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.7, 2.3)
Scott County Rural No 174.5 (133.4, 226.1) 36 (1, 102) 13 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.4, 1.2)
Calhoun County Urban No 181.5 (140.7, 233.5) 24 (1, 102) 14 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.2, 0.0)
Hardin County Rural No 228.2 (174.8, 296.1) 2 (1, 97) 14 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.1, 2.0)
Gallatin County Rural No 170.6 (131.9, 219.5) 48 (1, 102) 14 falling falling trend -2.3 (-10.7, -0.9)
Stark County Urban No 166.7 (129.3, 213.2) 57 (1, 102) 14 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.6)
Putnam County Rural No 163.0 (127.5, 207.3) 63 (2, 102) 15 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.2, 0.1)
Schuyler County Rural No 138.4 (108.3, 175.7) 96 (12, 102) 15 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.8, 0.4)
Pulaski County Rural No 204.7 (162.4, 256.6) 4 (1, 95) 17 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.0, 2.0)
Edwards County Rural No 182.9 (145.3, 228.5) 20 (1, 102) 17 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.3, 0.3)
Henderson County Rural No 151.9 (122.0, 189.2) 83 (5, 102) 19 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.1, 0.3)
Alexander County Urban No 247.9 (201.2, 304.2) 1 (1, 39) 21 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.2, 1.4)
Hamilton County Rural No 174.3 (142.6, 212.0) 37 (1, 102) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.2, 0.7)
Cumberland County Rural No 153.8 (126.5, 186.0) 81 (7, 102) 23 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.7)
Jasper County Rural No 172.0 (142.6, 206.6) 39 (2, 102) 25 stable stable trend 11.2 (-0.9, 20.3)
Cass County Rural No 161.9 (135.0, 192.9) 68 (4, 102) 26 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.3)
Menard County Urban No 154.3 (129.1, 183.6) 80 (8, 102) 28 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 0.4)
Johnson County Rural No 144.4 (121.5, 171.1) 90 (21, 102) 28 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.4, -0.5)
Marshall County Urban No 150.5 (125.8, 179.3) 85 (10, 102) 29 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.8, 0.3)
Wabash County Rural No 174.9 (146.9, 207.3) 34 (2, 100) 30 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.0)
Washington County Rural No 146.6 (123.3, 173.6) 88 (17, 102) 30 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.2)
Clay County Rural No 184.7 (157.9, 215.3) 18 (1, 95) 35 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.8)
Lawrence County Rural No 171.3 (146.9, 199.1) 44 (3, 99) 36 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.6)
Ford County Urban No 182.3 (156.2, 212.1) 23 (2, 92) 36 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
Greene County Rural No 197.5 (169.4, 229.6) 8 (1, 79) 36 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 0.9)
Moultrie County Rural No 188.7 (161.8, 219.1) 14 (1, 87) 37 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.8)
Piatt County Urban No 151.4 (130.1, 175.6) 84 (16, 102) 38 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.4)
Bond County Urban No 171.5 (147.5, 198.6) 43 (4, 100) 38 falling falling trend -1.5 (-3.0, -0.1)
Clark County Rural No 171.2 (147.3, 198.3) 45 (3, 99) 38 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
White County Rural No 168.4 (144.2, 196.0) 54 (4, 100) 38 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.8, -0.3)
Massac County Urban No 186.2 (160.5, 215.5) 15 (2, 87) 40 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 0.8)
Wayne County Rural No 156.5 (135.1, 180.7) 77 (13, 102) 41 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Mason County Rural No 190.2 (164.6, 219.4) 11 (1, 86) 41 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.6)
Richland County Rural No 170.5 (147.3, 196.7) 49 (4, 98) 41 falling falling trend -1.0 (-3.1, -0.2)
Hancock County Rural No 136.4 (118.0, 157.4) 100 (50, 102) 42 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.7)
Warren County Rural No 184.1 (159.6, 211.8) 19 (2, 90) 43 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.4)
Mercer County Urban No 177.2 (153.9, 203.5) 31 (2, 93) 43 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.2)
De Witt County Rural No 195.4 (170.0, 223.9) 9 (1, 80) 44 stable stable trend 7.4 (-1.7, 13.9)
Douglas County Rural No 169.1 (147.1, 193.7) 53 (6, 100) 44 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Pike County Rural No 193.3 (168.1, 221.6) 10 (1, 80) 45 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.7)
Carroll County Rural No 177.8 (155.2, 203.3) 29 (2, 93) 47 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Union County Rural No 180.3 (157.7, 205.7) 26 (2, 89) 48 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Crawford County Rural No 177.6 (155.6, 202.2) 30 (3, 89) 48 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
Fayette County Rural No 163.0 (143.0, 185.2) 64 (8, 100) 49 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.3)
Perry County Rural No 171.5 (150.5, 194.9) 41 (4, 96) 50 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Edgar County Rural No 189.1 (166.1, 214.8) 13 (1, 79) 53 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
McDonough County Rural No 156.1 (137.5, 176.6) 78 (17, 102) 56 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Jersey County Urban No 181.1 (160.5, 203.9) 25 (2, 84) 58 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.7)
Shelby County Rural No 169.8 (151.0, 190.9) 51 (7, 94) 62 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.3)
Jo Daviess County Rural No 143.2 (126.5, 162.0) 92 (40, 102) 62 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.4)
Saline County Rural No 182.6 (163.2, 204.0) 22 (2, 83) 66 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.2, -0.1)
Monroe County Urban No 137.8 (123.2, 153.9) 97 (59, 102) 68 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Clinton County Urban No 143.3 (128.4, 159.5) 91 (47, 102) 70 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.6)
Effingham County Rural No 160.2 (144.0, 177.8) 72 (17, 99) 75 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Logan County Rural No 186.0 (167.4, 206.4) 16 (2, 74) 75 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.6)
Montgomery County Rural No 175.2 (157.6, 194.5) 33 (5, 87) 76 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Woodford County Urban No 147.3 (132.8, 163.1) 87 (37, 102) 79 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Randolph County Rural No 170.8 (154.0, 189.2) 47 (7, 89) 79 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Iroquois County Rural No 185.9 (167.6, 206.0) 17 (2, 71) 80 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.5)
Christian County Rural No 170.9 (154.7, 188.6) 46 (10, 90) 84 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
Livingston County Rural No 162.2 (146.7, 179.1) 67 (16, 94) 84 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Bureau County Rural No 157.7 (142.8, 173.9) 75 (22, 99) 87 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.2)
Morgan County Rural No 177.9 (161.2, 196.0) 28 (6, 82) 88 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Lee County Rural No 173.0 (156.9, 190.4) 38 (8, 87) 90 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.5)
Boone County Urban No 144.7 (131.8, 158.6) 89 (53, 102) 95 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Coles County Rural No 159.1 (145.1, 174.3) 73 (24, 97) 99 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.4)
Jefferson County Rural No 189.6 (172.9, 207.5) 12 (2, 62) 99 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Fulton County Rural No 200.7 (183.2, 219.5) 6 (1, 43) 102 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.6)
Jackson County Rural No 164.7 (150.3, 180.1) 61 (16, 91) 103 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Grundy County Urban No 177.1 (162.0, 193.2) 32 (6, 80) 105 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Marion County Rural No 198.7 (181.8, 216.8) 7 (1, 44) 108 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Franklin County Rural No 205.3 (188.4, 223.5) 3 (1, 35) 114 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Macoupin County Urban No 166.6 (152.8, 181.5) 58 (15, 88) 114 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Stephenson County Rural No 161.1 (147.5, 175.7) 70 (23, 94) 118 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.2, -0.1)
Henry County Urban No 162.6 (149.6, 176.6) 66 (20, 91) 121 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.3)
Ogle County Rural No 167.2 (154.0, 181.4) 56 (15, 86) 123 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.2)
Knox County Rural No 178.7 (165.3, 193.1) 27 (6, 72) 139 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Whiteside County Rural No 170.0 (157.7, 183.1) 50 (14, 84) 149 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1)
Williamson County Rural No 160.5 (149.1, 172.5) 71 (29, 92) 155 falling falling trend -2.9 (-6.8, -1.7)
Adams County Rural No 162.9 (151.4, 175.0) 65 (24, 88) 160 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.6)
Kendall County Urban No 139.5 (129.7, 149.8) 94 (72, 102) 160 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.0)
DeKalb County Urban No 169.3 (158.0, 181.1) 52 (18, 83) 174 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.3, 2.7)
Vermilion County Rural No 202.4 (190.1, 215.3) 5 (1, 26) 215 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.2)
Kankakee County Urban No 171.9 (162.1, 182.1) 40 (15, 75) 239 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.0, 1.9)
Macon County Urban No 174.6 (165.1, 184.6) 35 (14, 71) 267 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -1.0)
McLean County Urban No 147.7 (139.8, 156.0) 86 (64, 98) 270 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.9)
Champaign County Urban No 137.4 (130.2, 144.9) 99 (81, 102) 283 stable stable trend -1.2 (-1.8, 1.2)
La Salle County Rural No 182.7 (173.1, 192.7) 21 (8, 52) 289 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Tazewell County Urban No 165.5 (157.3, 174.2) 59 (27, 81) 310 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
Rock Island County Urban No 157.3 (149.6, 165.4) 76 (42, 89) 327 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.6)
Peoria County Urban No 171.5 (164.0, 179.4) 42 (21, 69) 403 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Sangamon County Urban No 157.9 (151.1, 164.9) 74 (46, 88) 427 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.1)
St. Clair County Urban No 165.0 (158.6, 171.6) 60 (34, 78) 526 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.3, 0.7)
McHenry County Urban No 154.4 (148.7, 160.3) 79 (56, 90) 574 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 1.4)
Madison County Urban No 167.6 (161.5, 173.9) 55 (29, 73) 596 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.7)
Winnebago County Urban No 163.0 (157.2, 169.0) 62 (38, 80) 620 falling falling trend -2.3 (-5.6, -1.2)
Kane County Urban No 137.6 (133.3, 142.0) 98 (85, 101) 804 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Lake County Urban No 135.8 (132.2, 139.5) 101 (88, 101) 1,115 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.5)
Will County Urban No 152.0 (148.0, 156.1) 82 (66, 90) 1,143 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
DuPage County Urban No 128.6 (125.6, 131.6) 102 (95, 102) 1,489 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.6)
Cook County Urban No 141.4 (140.0, 142.7) 93 (83, 98) 8,685 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -2.3)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/23/2026 2:35 pm.

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

Trend
Rising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.
Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.
Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.


† 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+).

The Healthy People 2030 goals are based on rates adjusted using different methods but the differences should be minimal.

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

The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.

‡ The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) is based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint. Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

⋔ 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.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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