Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for South Dakota by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

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

Sorted by Recentaapc

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
South Dakota N/A No 901.5 (879.6, 923.9) N/A 1,329 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
United States N/A No 846.2 (845.1, 847.3) N/A 447,280 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.3)
Miner County Rural No 849.8 (517.5, 1,308.0) 34 (3, 61) 4 stable stable trend -3.3 (-19.8, 0.0)
Clark County Rural No 738.6 (509.0, 1,036.4) 50 (11, 61) 6 falling falling trend -3.2 (-13.4, -0.3)
Lincoln County Urban No 672.0 (596.8, 754.1) 55 (40, 61) 60 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.8, -1.4)
Tripp County Rural No 712.1 (524.7, 943.9) 53 (17, 61) 9 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.0, -0.7)
Brule County Rural No 632.4 (438.4, 883.9) 60 (21, 61) 7 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.6, -0.6)
Douglas County Rural No 661.8 (412.2, 1,003.9) 56 (11, 61) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-5.3, -0.1)
Roberts County Rural No 804.0 (636.1, 1,002.0) 40 (14, 60) 16 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.9, -1.2)
Spink County Rural No 659.2 (485.8, 873.5) 57 (24, 61) 10 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.2, -0.9)
Butte County Rural No 938.8 (750.6, 1,159.4) 27 (7, 56) 17 stable stable trend -2.4 (-4.8, 0.0)
Custer County Urban No 755.6 (604.4, 933.1) 48 (20, 61) 18 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.3, -0.1)
McPherson County Rural No 636.5 (402.0, 955.9) 59 (15, 61) 4 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.6, 1.5)
Lawrence County Rural No 783.0 (680.7, 896.3) 46 (24, 58) 44 falling falling trend -2.1 (-5.0, -1.4)
Davison County Rural No 716.1 (602.2, 844.9) 52 (29, 61) 29 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.3, -0.8)
Yankton County Rural No 738.7 (632.2, 857.9) 49 (27, 60) 35 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.2)
Union County Urban No 971.2 (816.1, 1,147.1) 22 (7, 49) 28 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.3)
Kingsbury County Rural No 845.1 (623.6, 1,118.3) 35 (7, 61) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.0)
Bon Homme County Rural No 816.6 (620.5, 1,053.6) 39 (10, 61) 12 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.1, 1.1)
Meade County Urban No 893.0 (770.9, 1,029.0) 31 (14, 52) 40 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.3)
Sanborn County Rural No 1,036.3 (645.2, 1,573.6) 18 (1, 61) 4 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.3, 1.6)
Brookings County Rural No 784.4 (670.8, 911.6) 45 (21, 58) 35 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.1)
Lake County Rural No 776.4 (606.4, 978.5) 47 (16, 61) 16 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.5, 1.0)
Pennington County Urban No 902.2 (841.3, 966.3) 30 (19, 42) 172 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Charles Mix County Rural No 624.3 (465.2, 819.4) 61 (29, 61) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.8, 1.4)
Codington County Rural No 869.6 (759.2, 991.3) 33 (16, 52) 46 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.3)
Gregory County Rural No 844.5 (607.5, 1,141.3) 36 (6, 61) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.9, 1.0)
Potter County Rural No 800.3 (530.8, 1,159.8) 41 (7, 61) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.1, 1.3)
Walworth County Rural No 953.7 (722.3, 1,234.9) 26 (4, 58) 11 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.7, 0.8)
Campbell County Rural No 694.5 (388.4, 1,146.5) 54 (6, 61) 3 stable stable trend -0.8 (-4.5, 2.8)
Clay County Rural No 970.1 (775.9, 1,198.0) 23 (6, 54) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.1)
Brown County Rural No 798.7 (704.3, 902.1) 42 (23, 56) 53 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.3)
Day County Rural No 789.3 (597.0, 1,023.9) 44 (12, 61) 11 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.1)
Fall River County Rural No 1,077.2 (877.5, 1,308.4) 17 (3, 46) 20 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.6)
Beadle County Rural No 917.7 (777.0, 1,076.4) 28 (10, 51) 31 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.6)
Bennett County Rural No 902.3 (553.1, 1,388.8) 29 (2, 61) 4 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.7, 2.7)
Marshall County Rural No 833.8 (585.4, 1,150.0) 37 (6, 61) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.7, 1.9)
Deuel County Rural No 821.2 (575.0, 1,135.7) 38 (7, 61) 7 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.2, 2.4)
Dewey County Rural No 1,477.5 (1,001.4, 2,101.9) 3 (1, 49) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.9, 2.3)
Minnehaha County Urban No 1,120.2 (1,058.7, 1,184.2) 13 (6, 23) 266 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.3)
Perkins County Rural No 1,031.6 (718.0, 1,431.9) 20 (2, 60) 7 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.5, 3.4)
Haakon County Rural No 1,031.0 (655.9, 1,540.1) 21 (2, 61) 4 stable stable trend 0.1 (-4.7, 19.8)
Moody County Rural No 792.2 (580.6, 1,054.6) 43 (10, 61) 9 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.7, 3.0)
Todd County Rural No 1,543.2 (1,100.3, 2,101.9) 2 (1, 36) 8 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.6, 2.7)
Edmunds County Rural No 731.6 (499.3, 1,032.5) 51 (11, 61) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.1, 3.2)
Hughes County Rural No 1,112.7 (946.4, 1,299.5) 14 (4, 35) 32 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.3, 2.5)
Hamlin County Rural No 1,133.3 (830.1, 1,508.7) 11 (1, 55) 9 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.5, 2.7)
Corson County Rural No 1,204.8 (765.5, 1,802.1) 8 (1, 60) 5 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.3, 4.0)
Jackson County Rural No 1,279.0 (822.7, 1,894.9) 6 (1, 59) 5 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.1, 4.4)
Faulk County Rural No 1,201.8 (809.1, 1,715.9) 9 (1, 59) 6 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.4, 4.0)
Aurora County Rural No 958.8 (636.6, 1,386.1) 25 (2, 61) 5 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.0, 5.0)
McCook County Urban No 1,303.4 (990.4, 1,681.6) 5 (1, 39) 12 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.3, 3.6)
Hanson County Rural No 1,815.1 (1,089.1, 2,813.0) 1 (1, 52) 5 rising rising trend 5.3 (1.6, 9.3)
Hutchinson County Rural No 1,127.3 (905.3, 1,386.7) 12 (2, 44) 18 rising rising trend 6.4 (2.0, 18.4)
Grant County Rural No 1,083.6 (872.7, 1,329.2) 16 (3, 47) 18 stable stable trend 12.3 (-1.2, 24.2)
Turner County Urban No 1,035.0 (829.8, 1,275.3) 19 (4, 49) 18 rising rising trend 16.8 (0.8, 28.5)
Hand County Rural No 877.7 (606.7, 1,226.8) 32 (5, 61) 7
*
*
Hyde County Rural No 1,085.6 (637.2, 1,735.4) 15 (1, 61) 3
*
*
Jerauld County Rural No 968.1 (609.2, 1,458.9) 24 (2, 61) 4
*
*
Lyman County Rural No 1,166.5 (817.9, 1,614.5) 10 (1, 58) 7
*
*
Mellette County Rural No 1,466.6 (871.4, 2,329.8) 4 (1, 59) 4
*
*
Oglala Lakota County Rural No 1,242.4 (927.8, 1,633.2) 7 (1, 44) 11
*
*
Stanley County Rural No 657.4 (404.6, 1,010.4) 58 (10, 61) 4
*
*
Buffalo County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harding County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sully County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ziebach County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 5:11 am.

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 has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category.

If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top