Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

Black Non-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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Alabama N/A No 171.8 (168.6, 175.1) N/A 2,379 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.1)
United States 6 N/A No 168.6 (168.1, 169.2) N/A 70,631 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -2.0)
Jefferson County Urban No 174.0 (167.2, 181.0) 34 (19, 44) 542 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.1)
Mobile County Urban No 178.0 (168.4, 188.0) 29 (14, 44) 277 falling falling trend -3.0 (-6.2, -2.0)
Montgomery County Urban No 174.2 (163.7, 185.1) 33 (16, 47) 223 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.4)
Madison County Urban No 142.9 (131.1, 155.5) 56 (39, 59) 121 falling falling trend -3.6 (-8.7, -2.2)
Tuscaloosa County Urban No 157.2 (142.9, 172.5) 49 (24, 56) 98 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.3)
Lee County Urban No 189.8 (168.3, 213.2) 15 (6, 46) 65 stable stable trend 3.3 (-2.1, 11.2)
Dallas County Rural No 164.3 (144.1, 186.6) 42 (13, 56) 51 falling falling trend -15.3 (-23.0, -3.3)
Talladega County Rural No 182.9 (160.0, 208.2) 24 (6, 51) 51 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.8)
Houston County Urban No 185.5 (162.4, 210.8) 22 (6, 50) 50 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.8)
Russell County Urban No 187.0 (163.4, 213.1) 17 (5, 50) 49 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
Calhoun County Urban No 168.9 (145.7, 194.8) 38 (9, 57) 41 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.5)
Macon County Urban No 182.4 (156.3, 212.2) 26 (6, 54) 39 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.6)
Clarke County Rural No 260.4 (220.8, 305.2) 2 (1, 14) 32 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Baldwin County Urban No 160.4 (135.4, 188.7) 47 (11, 59) 32 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.7)
Elmore County Urban No 228.9 (191.8, 270.5) 5 (1, 36) 32 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Etowah County Urban No 179.8 (151.4, 212.1) 28 (5, 55) 31 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Chambers County Rural No 158.9 (132.3, 189.6) 48 (11, 60) 27 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Shelby County Urban No 123.8 (101.1, 149.6) 60 (41, 61) 27 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.4, -0.6)
Barbour County Rural No 189.2 (157.3, 225.9) 16 (3, 54) 26 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3)
Escambia County Rural No 197.7 (164.1, 236.3) 11 (2, 53) 25 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.8)
Morgan County Urban No 167.8 (137.8, 202.2) 39 (7, 59) 25 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -1.0)
Tallapoosa County Rural No 193.6 (160.3, 232.0) 13 (3, 54) 25 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Colbert County Urban No 193.3 (158.4, 233.9) 14 (3, 54) 23 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.3)
Hale County Urban No 203.3 (166.5, 246.4) 9 (2, 50) 23 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.3)
Marengo County Rural No 163.0 (131.9, 199.7) 45 (8, 60) 21 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.4)
Sumter County Rural No 186.9 (150.4, 230.1) 18 (3, 57) 20 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.3)
Pike County Rural No 182.5 (147.2, 223.4) 25 (4, 57) 20 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Autauga County Urban No 163.3 (130.3, 201.9) 44 (7, 60) 19 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.1, -0.9)
Monroe County Rural No 172.4 (137.5, 214.0) 35 (5, 59) 18 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.1)
Butler County Rural No 174.9 (139.7, 216.5) 32 (4, 59) 18 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Pickens County Urban No 186.3 (148.6, 231.2) 20 (3, 58) 18 falling falling trend -2.2 (-11.0, -1.1)
Wilcox County Rural No 207.6 (165.2, 257.7) 7 (1, 53) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
Dale County Rural No 176.5 (138.7, 221.1) 31 (4, 59) 17 falling falling trend -2.8 (-12.6, -1.3)
Lowndes County Urban No 177.5 (140.6, 221.7) 30 (3, 59) 17 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Limestone County Urban Yes 110.7 (86.3, 139.8) 61 (45, 61) 16
*
*
Lauderdale County Urban No 166.2 (130.5, 208.7) 40 (6, 60) 16 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.6)
Greene County Urban No 170.4 (132.7, 216.5) 36 (4, 60) 16 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.4)
Bullock County Rural No 170.1 (132.3, 215.8) 37 (4, 60) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Coffee County Rural No 144.8 (112.5, 183.5) 54 (12, 61) 15 falling falling trend -4.7 (-6.5, -3.5)
Conecuh County Rural No 186.7 (142.5, 241.2) 19 (2, 58) 13 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -0.1)
Henry County Urban No 198.0 (150.2, 257.7) 10 (1, 57) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.2)
Choctaw County Rural No 151.5 (114.1, 198.9) 52 (7, 61) 12 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.1, -1.0)
Perry County Rural No 163.4 (123.4, 212.9) 43 (5, 61) 12 falling falling trend -5.5 (-18.7, -2.2)
St. Clair County Urban No 128.9 (93.5, 173.0) 59 (19, 61) 11 falling falling trend -3.9 (-20.3, -1.9)
Covington County Rural No 184.9 (136.6, 245.2) 23 (2, 60) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Chilton County Urban No 185.5 (132.6, 252.3) 21 (1, 61) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Walker County Urban No 210.3 (150.2, 286.2) 6 (1, 58) 9 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.3)
Crenshaw County Rural No 193.8 (134.9, 270.8) 12 (1, 61) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.7, 1.1)
Lawrence County Urban No 135.8 (95.8, 189.9) 57 (9, 61) 8 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.7)
Geneva County Urban No 249.5 (173.3, 348.3) 3 (1, 56) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.2)
Washington County Rural No 164.4 (113.2, 232.0) 41 (3, 61) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.6)
Randolph County Rural No 144.4 (100.2, 202.1) 55 (6, 61) 7 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.4)
Bibb County Urban No 155.6 (106.1, 220.0) 50 (4, 61) 7 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.5)
Coosa County Rural No 153.0 (102.3, 222.5) 51 (3, 61) 7 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.1, -1.7)
Fayette County Rural No 206.0 (129.8, 312.3) 8 (1, 61) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.7)
Marshall County Rural No 299.5 (182.9, 454.9) 1 (1, 59) 5
*
*
Clay County Rural No 162.8 (97.4, 257.0) 46 (1, 61) 4
*
*
Jackson County Rural No 132.8 (75.7, 219.3) 58 (3, 61) 3 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.7, -0.1)
Marion County Rural No 243.6 (140.2, 396.1) 4 (1, 61) 3
*
*
Franklin County Rural No 181.9 (101.8, 304.3) 27 (1, 61) 3
*
*
Lamar County Rural No 150.4 (83.8, 254.6) 53 (2, 61) 3
*
*
Blount County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cherokee County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cleburne County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cullman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
DeKalb County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Winston County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 01/20/2025 2:49 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 (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). 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.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
6 Hispanic mortality recent trend data for the United States has been excluded for the following states: Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. The data on Hispanic and non-Hispanic mortality for these states may be unreliable for the time period used in the generation of the recent trend (1990 - 2022) and has been excluded from the calculation of the United States recent trend. This was based on the NCHS Policy.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.

* 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).

Please note that the data comes from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each graph for additional information.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

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.

Return to Top