Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for South Dakota by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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 149.8 (146.5, 153.1) N/A 1,709 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.9)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Aurora County Rural No 196.3 (140.6, 270.2) 12 (1, 59) 9 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.7)
Beadle County Rural No 139.2 (119.3, 161.9) 39 (16, 59) 37 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Bennett County Rural No 149.1 (97.2, 219.3) 27 (4, 64) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.9, 1.1)
Bon Homme County Rural No 146.8 (115.2, 185.6) 30 (9, 62) 16 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.4)
Brookings County Rural No 138.8 (121.1, 158.3) 40 (18, 58) 47 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Brown County Rural No 138.1 (123.6, 153.9) 41 (20, 57) 71 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Brule County Rural Yes 113.5 (81.3, 155.7) 58 (17, 64) 10 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Buffalo County Rural No 237.6 (131.4, 389.4) 4 (1, 64) 3
*
*
Butte County Rural No 178.9 (149.1, 213.6) 15 (5, 44) 27 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.9)
Campbell County Rural Yes 94.5 (53.0, 179.7) 64 (13, 64) 3 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.5, 0.2)
Charles Mix County Rural No 146.4 (116.2, 182.5) 31 (9, 61) 18 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Clark County Rural No 131.7 (92.5, 184.6) 47 (8, 64) 8 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.3)
Clay County Rural No 160.7 (131.6, 194.6) 20 (8, 56) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.5)
Codington County Rural No 145.9 (129.3, 164.4) 32 (15, 54) 59 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Corson County Rural No 182.9 (122.1, 262.5) 14 (1, 63) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.0)
Custer County Urban No 137.7 (112.8, 168.8) 42 (13, 62) 24 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.2)
Davison County Rural No 129.7 (111.2, 150.8) 48 (22, 62) 38 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Day County Rural No 133.3 (104.3, 170.8) 46 (12, 63) 15 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.4)
Deuel County Rural No 127.8 (92.4, 175.0) 50 (11, 64) 9 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.5, 0.0)
Dewey County Rural No 235.8 (172.0, 314.4) 5 (1, 43) 10 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.1)
Douglas County Rural Yes 113.8 (72.9, 173.8) 57 (10, 64) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.1, 0.1)
Edmunds County Rural No 125.4 (89.6, 173.7) 54 (11, 64) 9 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.3, -0.5)
Fall River County Rural No 175.8 (143.9, 215.1) 18 (5, 50) 24 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.7, 0.0)
Faulk County Rural No 205.0 (141.1, 293.2) 9 (1, 58) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.4, 1.4)
Grant County Rural No 140.0 (112.2, 174.0) 38 (12, 62) 19 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Gregory County Rural No 147.7 (107.4, 200.9) 28 (6, 64) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Haakon County Rural No 142.0 (92.0, 219.3) 35 (5, 64) 5 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.9, 0.7)
Hamlin County Rural No 177.9 (136.0, 229.2) 16 (3, 58) 13 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Hand County Rural No 140.3 (97.1, 200.0) 37 (6, 64) 8 stable stable trend 22.2 (-1.7, 41.0)
Hanson County Rural No 264.6 (174.6, 380.5) 3 (1, 49) 7 rising rising trend 2.1 (0.4, 3.9)
Hughes County Rural No 165.0 (141.8, 191.2) 19 (8, 48) 38 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Hutchinson County Rural No 146.9 (118.1, 182.1) 29 (10, 61) 20 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -0.2)
Hyde County Rural No 188.7 (115.8, 303.8) 13 (1, 64) 5
*
*
Jackson County Rural No 215.5 (145.6, 307.7) 7 (1, 60) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.9, 1.7)
Jerauld County Rural No 129.6 (79.9, 210.9) 49 (5, 64) 5
*
*
Jones County Rural No 203.0 (119.2, 346.9) 10 (1, 64) 4
*
*
Kingsbury County Rural No 134.7 (101.2, 177.8) 43 (10, 64) 12 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.0, -0.1)
Lake County Rural No 141.6 (115.0, 173.1) 36 (11, 61) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Lawrence County Rural No 134.1 (118.0, 152.1) 45 (21, 59) 55 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Lincoln County Urban Yes 113.0 (101.8, 125.2) 59 (43, 63) 77 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 3.8)
Lyman County Rural No 207.2 (151.6, 277.8) 8 (1, 53) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 1.0)
Marshall County Rural Yes 111.0 (78.7, 154.7) 61 (16, 64) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.8)
McCook County Urban No 200.5 (158.1, 251.8) 11 (2, 45) 16 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.5, 1.9)
McPherson County Rural Yes 94.6 (61.3, 149.4) 63 (22, 64) 5 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.1)
Meade County Urban No 151.7 (133.6, 171.6) 25 (13, 52) 54 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Mellette County Rural No 274.8 (181.1, 401.3) 2 (1, 46) 6 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.3, 2.3)
Miner County Rural No 155.4 (100.3, 234.5) 21 (3, 64) 6 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.3)
Minnehaha County Urban No 176.4 (168.0, 185.2) 17 (9, 24) 351 falling falling trend -0.7 (-0.9, -0.4)
Moody County Rural No 142.5 (108.5, 184.8) 34 (9, 63) 13 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.9)
Oglala Lakota County Rural No 228.8 (180.5, 284.7) 6 (1, 28) 19
*
*
Pennington County Urban No 153.6 (144.4, 163.3) 22 (17, 41) 225 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Perkins County Rural No 145.7 (103.3, 205.6) 33 (6, 64) 8 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.7, 1.9)
Potter County Rural Yes 108.6 (72.5, 165.3) 62 (15, 64) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
Roberts County Rural No 153.4 (125.4, 186.5) 23 (9, 59) 22 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.3)
Sanborn County Rural No 134.2 (85.9, 205.0) 44 (6, 64) 5 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.2)
Spink County Rural Yes 112.9 (84.1, 149.7) 60 (19, 64) 12 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.8)
Stanley County Rural No 126.4 (85.1, 184.9) 52 (10, 64) 6 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.9, -1.1)
Sully County Rural No 127.5 (68.3, 226.8) 51 (4, 64) 3 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.8, 0.4)
Todd County Rural No 285.6 (218.4, 364.9) 1 (1, 15) 14 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.3, 10.5)
Tripp County Rural Yes 121.1 (90.2, 161.0) 55 (15, 64) 12 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.6)
Turner County Urban No 125.6 (100.0, 156.8) 53 (17, 64) 18 stable stable trend -1.9 (-17.0, 0.7)
Union County Urban No 150.1 (127.8, 175.5) 26 (12, 57) 34 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5)
Walworth County Rural No 151.8 (116.7, 196.1) 24 (7, 62) 14 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.2)
Yankton County Rural Yes 119.1 (103.4, 136.9) 56 (33, 63) 44 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Harding County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ziebach County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/13/2024 2:46 pm.

South Dakota County Name Change: please note that Shannon County, SD (FIPS code=46113) was renamed effective May 1, 2015, and the new name is Oglala Lakota County (FIPS Code=46102). This website now uses Oglala Lakota.

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.

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