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), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban ascending
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 131.2 (127.0, 135.5) N/A 802 falling falling trend -0.7 (-0.9, -0.5)
United States N/A No 126.4 (126.2, 126.6) N/A 285,526 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Custer County Urban Yes 108.7 (77.9, 153.6) 38 (9, 49) 10 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.7, -0.6)
Lincoln County Urban Yes 108.8 (93.9, 125.5) 37 (20, 47) 40 stable stable trend 6.9 (-3.0, 21.1)
McCook County Urban No 184.1 (131.9, 253.9) 7 (1, 38) 8 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.4, 2.2)
Meade County Urban No 143.3 (118.9, 171.6) 13 (5, 38) 26 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.3)
Minnehaha County Urban No 154.9 (144.3, 166.1) 11 (6, 20) 170 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.0)
Pennington County Urban No 136.6 (124.5, 149.5) 17 (10, 32) 106 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Turner County Urban Yes 109.7 (76.6, 154.8) 35 (8, 49) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.1)
Union County Urban No 134.1 (105.9, 168.4) 19 (6, 44) 16 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.5)
Aurora County Rural No 200.4 (120.2, 321.5) 6 (1, 47) 5 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.6, 3.5)
Beadle County Rural Yes 121.1 (95.6, 152.0) 30 (9, 47) 17 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Bennett County Rural No 169.1 (95.1, 279.4) 10 (1, 49) 3
*
*
Bon Homme County Rural No 129.5 (82.6, 196.6) 21 (3, 49) 7 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.5, 2.7)
Brookings County Rural Yes 110.9 (89.1, 136.5) 34 (14, 48) 19 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.2)
Brown County Rural No 124.7 (106.1, 146.0) 27 (11, 43) 35 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Brule County Rural Yes 100.5 (61.9, 159.1) 43 (7, 49) 5
*
*
Butte County Rural No 142.0 (106.5, 187.3) 14 (4, 45) 11 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.9)
Charles Mix County Rural No 125.1 (86.7, 175.7) 26 (5, 49) 8 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 1.8)
Clay County Rural No 135.7 (100.2, 180.7) 18 (5, 46) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.9)
Codington County Rural No 127.4 (106.2, 152.0) 23 (9, 43) 28 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.3)
Corson County Rural No 201.4 (113.7, 327.6) 4 (1, 48) 3 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.7, 3.8)
Davison County Rural Yes 116.4 (92.1, 145.8) 32 (10, 47) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.0)
Day County Rural Yes 102.7 (70.5, 153.3) 41 (10, 49) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.2)
Deuel County Rural Yes 93.4 (51.5, 162.1) 46 (8, 49) 3
*
*
Dewey County Rural No 201.4 (126.4, 303.3) 5 (1, 46) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.0)
Edmunds County Rural Yes 100.0 (56.5, 171.3) 44 (6, 49) 3 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.9, -0.2)
Fall River County Rural No 128.5 (91.6, 181.3) 22 (5, 48) 9 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.4)
Faulk County Rural No 203.6 (113.1, 348.0) 3 (1, 48) 4 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.3, 2.3)
Grant County Rural Yes 108.5 (74.8, 156.3) 39 (8, 49) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
Gregory County Rural Yes 116.2 (70.9, 189.1) 33 (5, 49) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.1)
Hamlin County Rural No 125.2 (78.5, 191.5) 25 (3, 49) 5 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.7, 1.7)
Hand County Rural No 138.8 (83.3, 228.8) 16 (2, 49) 4 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.8, 1.5)
Hanson County Rural No 229.5 (124.2, 383.0) 2 (1, 48) 3
*
*
Hughes County Rural No 154.4 (123.7, 191.0) 12 (3, 39) 19 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.9, 2.0)
Hutchinson County Rural Yes 108.9 (77.1, 153.3) 36 (9, 49) 9 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.2)
Kingsbury County Rural Yes 99.4 (57.3, 164.0) 45 (6, 49) 4 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.6, 0.8)
Lake County Rural Yes 121.4 (87.6, 165.7) 29 (6, 48) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.1)
Lawrence County Rural No 126.8 (105.1, 152.5) 24 (9, 44) 28 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.9, 0.0)
Lyman County Rural No 173.9 (108.1, 270.3) 9 (1, 47) 4
*
*
Marshall County Rural Yes 91.7 (52.0, 158.2) 47 (9, 49) 3 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.4, 2.9)
Moody County Rural No 139.7 (91.9, 205.5) 15 (3, 49) 6 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.5, 3.7)
Oglala Lakota County Rural No 179.8 (126.7, 246.0) 8 (1, 39) 9
*
*
Perkins County Rural No 133.1 (76.8, 228.3) 20 (2, 49) 4 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.8, 3.0)
Potter County Rural Yes 101.3 (56.6, 189.9) 42 (5, 49) 3
*
*
Roberts County Rural Yes 116.5 (84.6, 158.6) 31 (7, 49) 9 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.5)
Spink County Rural Yes 78.5 (48.5, 125.0) 49 (20, 49) 5 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.7, -0.1)
Todd County Rural No 289.9 (199.7, 402.9) 1 (1, 13) 8
*
*
Tripp County Rural Yes 88.3 (54.8, 140.5) 48 (13, 49) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.6, 0.8)
Walworth County Rural No 124.1 (79.9, 188.6) 28 (4, 49) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.1)
Yankton County Rural Yes 105.4 (85.7, 129.2) 40 (17, 48) 22 falling falling trend -2.4 (-6.4, -1.2)
Buffalo County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Campbell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clark County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Douglas County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Haakon County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harding County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jerauld County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McPherson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mellette County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Miner County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sanborn County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stanley County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sully County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ziebach County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/13/2024 2:27 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.


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