Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages 65+

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 1,142.2 (1,039.8, 1,252.0) 1 (1, 15) 95 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Clarke County Rural No 1,134.8 (1,001.3, 1,281.2) 2 (1, 31) 52 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.8)
Crenshaw County Rural No 1,066.3 (890.1, 1,267.4) 3 (1, 60) 26 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.5)
Pickens County Urban No 1,034.5 (889.3, 1,196.9) 4 (1, 60) 37 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.8, -0.1)
Cleburne County Rural No 1,024.1 (864.9, 1,204.4) 5 (1, 60) 29 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.3)
Lawrence County Urban No 1,018.3 (905.1, 1,142.1) 6 (1, 50) 60 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 3.3)
Franklin County Rural No 1,009.5 (890.8, 1,139.6) 7 (1, 56) 53 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Walker County Urban No 1,005.9 (926.0, 1,091.0) 8 (2, 43) 120 falling falling trend -3.1 (-9.5, -1.1)
Marion County Rural No 1,005.5 (895.8, 1,125.0) 9 (1, 53) 61 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Clay County Rural No 987.3 (831.2, 1,164.3) 10 (1, 63) 28 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.4)
Etowah County Urban No 986.6 (923.3, 1,053.1) 11 (3, 42) 188 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Jackson County Rural No 984.7 (899.9, 1,075.5) 12 (2, 49) 102 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Chilton County Urban No 976.8 (875.4, 1,086.8) 13 (1, 57) 70 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.0)
Geneva County Urban No 976.2 (859.3, 1,104.7) 14 (1, 61) 51 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 0.9)
Escambia County Rural No 971.7 (868.3, 1,084.2) 15 (1, 55) 64 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Calhoun County Urban No 970.6 (909.2, 1,035.1) 16 (4, 45) 191 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
Lowndes County Urban No 967.1 (781.0, 1,184.2) 17 (1, 67) 19 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.2, 0.5)
Fayette County Rural No 950.3 (806.2, 1,112.8) 18 (1, 64) 31 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9)
Dale County Rural No 948.6 (856.8, 1,047.5) 19 (3, 58) 79 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Chambers County Rural No 948.3 (844.9, 1,060.8) 20 (2, 60) 62 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Cherokee County Rural No 942.2 (829.3, 1,066.3) 21 (2, 62) 52 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
Lee County Urban No 937.6 (878.1, 1,000.2) 22 (6, 52) 194 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Elmore County Urban No 933.1 (859.9, 1,011.0) 23 (5, 54) 124 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Marshall County Rural No 930.8 (863.9, 1,001.6) 24 (5, 54) 147 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.7)
Barbour County Rural No 930.6 (811.6, 1,062.3) 25 (2, 63) 44 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -0.9)
Talladega County Rural No 930.2 (860.5, 1,004.3) 26 (5, 55) 136 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.4)
Mobile County Urban No 927.5 (894.4, 961.6) 27 (13, 45) 610 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.4)
Macon County Urban No 925.7 (790.2, 1,077.8) 28 (1, 65) 34 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.4)
Covington County Rural No 923.4 (831.9, 1,022.2) 29 (4, 59) 75 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.9)
Blount County Urban No 921.9 (841.1, 1,008.5) 30 (5, 58) 97 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Jefferson County Urban No 916.3 (890.0, 943.2) 31 (18, 45) 949 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Choctaw County Rural No 912.8 (762.6, 1,083.9) 32 (1, 66) 26 stable stable trend -4.9 (-13.4, 3.8)
St. Clair County Urban No 911.7 (844.7, 982.6) 33 (7, 57) 141 falling falling trend -1.8 (-6.1, -1.0)
Pike County Rural No 910.3 (793.7, 1,039.2) 34 (3, 65) 44 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Winston County Rural No 904.8 (790.3, 1,031.3) 35 (3, 65) 45 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Henry County Urban No 903.9 (773.9, 1,049.7) 36 (2, 66) 35 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.8, -1.1)
Lamar County Rural No 903.5 (757.1, 1,070.1) 37 (1, 66) 27 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -0.9)
DeKalb County Rural No 901.0 (825.0, 982.3) 38 (8, 60) 106 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Montgomery County Urban No 895.3 (850.3, 942.2) 39 (15, 55) 304 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.2)
Bibb County Urban No 894.8 (764.6, 1,041.1) 40 (3, 66) 34 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.2)
Houston County Urban No 890.4 (830.2, 953.8) 41 (12, 59) 165 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Tallapoosa County Rural No 890.1 (803.3, 983.9) 42 (6, 63) 79 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.4)
Colbert County Urban No 887.0 (810.3, 969.0) 43 (8, 62) 99 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Hale County Urban No 879.3 (729.6, 1,050.8) 44 (2, 67) 24 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.5, -0.1)
Washington County Rural No 876.9 (729.2, 1,045.7) 45 (2, 67) 25 stable stable trend -4.0 (-21.7, 0.2)
Bullock County Rural No 874.3 (687.6, 1,096.2) 46 (1, 67) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.3, 1.5)
Greene County Urban No 859.3 (671.5, 1,082.5) 47 (1, 67) 14 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.0)
Conecuh County Rural No 858.2 (709.4, 1,029.2) 48 (2, 67) 23 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.2)
Morgan County Urban No 855.4 (799.9, 913.9) 49 (21, 62) 180 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Coosa County Rural No 851.7 (693.6, 1,035.0) 50 (3, 67) 20 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.4, -0.4)
Autauga County Urban No 851.4 (768.4, 940.9) 51 (13, 65) 78 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.1, -0.6)
Coffee County Rural No 840.3 (756.0, 931.5) 52 (13, 65) 73 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
Butler County Rural No 838.8 (712.8, 980.4) 53 (6, 67) 32 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.2)
Cullman County Rural No 838.3 (775.3, 905.0) 54 (24, 64) 134 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.9)
Randolph County Rural No 836.6 (720.7, 966.0) 55 (8, 67) 38 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.1)
Madison County Urban No 833.2 (799.8, 867.6) 56 (37, 62) 477 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.3)
Baldwin County Urban No 830.7 (793.6, 869.2) 57 (36, 62) 389 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Dallas County Rural No 826.3 (732.0, 929.3) 58 (14, 67) 57 falling falling trend -11.8 (-20.9, -2.3)
Limestone County Urban No 799.4 (737.1, 865.7) 59 (36, 66) 125 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -0.8)
Monroe County Rural No 791.8 (672.3, 926.5) 60 (13, 67) 31 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
Wilcox County Rural No 785.6 (623.7, 976.5) 61 (4, 67) 16 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.0, 1.2)
Marengo County Rural No 772.0 (650.5, 909.5) 62 (16, 67) 29 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.5, -1.0)
Lauderdale County Urban No 766.2 (710.5, 825.1) 63 (46, 67) 142 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.1, -2.4)
Tuscaloosa County Urban No 763.4 (718.8, 810.0) 64 (50, 67) 228 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -1.9)
Perry County Rural No 745.0 (571.4, 954.5) 65 (7, 67) 12 falling falling trend -2.6 (-5.1, -0.6)
Shelby County Urban No 702.3 (662.7, 743.6) 66 (60, 67) 242 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.5)
Sumter County Rural No 695.2 (547.0, 870.9) 67 (20, 67) 15 falling falling trend -14.9 (-31.3, -2.4)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/22/2026 7:57 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