Jacey
- #2,458 for girls in 2025, 72 births
- Last seen for boys in 2024 at #8,987
- Given to girls 94.3% of the time
Showing
- Peak · girls
- 2000 · 322 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 8,044since 1965
Jacey over time
girlsboys
Rank within each sex, plotted together. Click any year to open it.
Hover or use arrow keys to read values by year; click or press Enter to open that year.
Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.
Show data table
| Year | girls | boys | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | births | rank | births | |
| 2025 | #2,458 | 72 | — | |
| 2024 | #2,218 | 85 | #8,987 | 8 |
| 2023 | #2,397 | 75 | #8,255 | 9 |
| 2022 | #2,295 | 81 | #12,330 | 5 |
| 2021 | #2,212 | 84 | #10,799 | 6 |
| 2020 | #2,065 | 89 | #9,554 | 7 |
| 2019 | #1,971 | 98 | #6,777 | 12 |
| 2018 | #1,748 | 117 | — | |
| 2017 | #1,482 | 150 | #7,546 | 10 |
| 2016 | #1,384 | 169 | #9,664 | 7 |
| 2015 | #1,372 | 172 | #5,507 | 16 |
| 2014 | #1,284 | 186 | #6,632 | 12 |
| 2013 | #1,105 | 220 | #8,118 | 9 |
| 2012 | #1,055 | 238 | #8,158 | 9 |
| 2011 | #882 | 297 | #7,502 | 10 |
| 2010 | #1,008 | 249 | #9,693 | 7 |
| 2009 | #842 | 331 | #5,554 | 16 |
| 2008 | #805 | 358 | #5,487 | 16 |
| 2007 | #856 | 330 | #4,996 | 18 |
| 2006 | #747 | 370 | #4,675 | 19 |
| 2005 | #787 | 331 | #3,710 | 25 |
| 2004 | #802 | 315 | #4,421 | 19 |
| 2003 | #846 | 288 | #4,426 | 18 |
| 2002 | #802 | 292 | #5,395 | 13 |
| 2001 | #813 | 289 | #6,935 | 9 |
| 2000 | #718 | 322 | #5,920 | 11 |
| 1999 | #778 | 283 | #7,139 | 8 |
| 1998 | #871 | 242 | #4,873 | 13 |
| 1997 | #894 | 225 | #5,642 | 10 |
| 1996 | #964 | 199 | #5,982 | 9 |
| 1995 | #1,261 | 134 | #3,559 | 18 |
| 1994 | #1,141 | 156 | #4,094 | 15 |
| 1993 | #1,185 | 146 | #5,002 | 11 |
| 1992 | #1,149 | 153 | #7,422 | 6 |
| 1991 | #1,619 | 93 | #5,096 | 10 |
| 1990 | #1,701 | 86 | #4,673 | 11 |
| 1989 | #1,701 | 80 | #4,527 | 11 |
| 1988 | #2,251 | 50 | #4,786 | 9 |
| 1987 | #2,044 | 54 | #6,951 | 5 |
| 1986 | #1,932 | 57 | #6,721 | 5 |
| 1985 | #2,172 | 48 | #5,147 | 7 |
| 1984 | #2,149 | 46 | — | |
| 1983 | #2,310 | 41 | #4,499 | 8 |
| 1982 | #3,017 | 29 | #5,619 | 6 |
| 1981 | #2,614 | 35 | — | |
| 1980 | #2,308 | 42 | #4,134 | 9 |
| 1979 | #2,525 | 36 | #4,842 | 7 |
| 1978 | #2,125 | 44 | #5,772 | 5 |
| 1977 | #2,838 | 28 | — | |
| 1976 | #3,287 | 21 | — | |
| 1975 | #2,680 | 28 | #4,797 | 6 |
| 1974 | #3,426 | 19 | #4,190 | 7 |
| 1973 | #3,787 | 16 | — | |
| 1972 | #3,894 | 15 | — | |
| 1971 | #6,619 | 7 | — | |
| 1970 | #5,818 | 8 | — | |
| 1969 | #4,723 | 10 | — | |
| 1968 | — | — | ||
| 1967 | — | — | ||
| 1966 | — | — | ||
| 1965 | #6,539 | 5 | — | |
| 1964 | — | — | ||
| 1963 | — | — | ||
| 1962 | — | — | ||
| 1961 | — | — | ||
| 1960 | — | — | ||
| 1959 | — | — | ||
| 1958 | — | — | ||
| 1957 | — | — | ||
| 1956 | — | — | ||
| 1955 | — | — | ||
| 1954 | — | — | ||
| 1953 | — | — | ||
| 1952 | — | — | ||
| 1951 | — | — | ||
| 1950 | — | — | ||
| 1949 | — | — | ||
| 1948 | — | — | ||
| 1947 | — | — | ||
| 1946 | — | — | ||
| 1945 | — | — | ||
| 1944 | — | — | ||
| 1943 | — | — | ||
| 1942 | — | — | ||
| 1941 | — | — | ||
| 1940 | — | — | ||
| 1939 | — | — | ||
| 1938 | — | — | ||
| 1937 | — | — | ||
| 1936 | — | — | ||
| 1935 | — | — | ||
| 1934 | — | — | ||
| 1933 | — | — | ||
| 1932 | — | — | ||
| 1931 | — | — | ||
| 1930 | — | — | ||
| 1929 | — | — | ||
| 1928 | — | — | ||
| 1927 | — | — | ||
| 1926 | — | — | ||
| 1925 | — | — | ||
| 1924 | — | — | ||
| 1923 | — | — | ||
| 1922 | — | — | ||
| 1921 | — | — | ||
| 1920 | — | — | ||
| 1919 | — | — | ||
| 1918 | — | — | ||
| 1917 | — | — | ||
| 1916 | — | — | ||
| 1915 | — | — | ||
| 1914 | — | — | ||
| 1913 | — | — | ||
| 1912 | — | — | ||
| 1911 | — | — | ||
| 1910 | — | — | ||
| 1909 | — | — | ||
| 1908 | — | — | ||
| 1907 | — | — | ||
| 1906 | — | — | ||
| 1905 | — | — | ||
| 1904 | — | — | ||
| 1903 | — | — | ||
| 1902 | — | — | ||
| 1901 | — | — | ||
| 1900 | — | — | ||
| 1899 | — | — | ||
| 1898 | — | — | ||
| 1897 | — | — | ||
| 1896 | — | — | ||
| 1895 | — | — | ||
| 1894 | — | — | ||
| 1893 | — | — | ||
| 1892 | — | — | ||
| 1891 | — | — | ||
| 1890 | — | — | ||
| 1889 | — | — | ||
| 1888 | — | — | ||
| 1887 | — | — | ||
| 1886 | — | — | ||
| 1885 | — | — | ||
| 1884 | — | — | ||
| 1883 | — | — | ||
| 1882 | — | — | ||
| 1881 | — | — | ||
| 1880 | — | — | ||
First appearance
1965
The first year at least five girls were named Jacey! It came in at #6,539, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1965–1968, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Jacey is popular in 2025
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
Top states · girls
- Virginia#1,037 · 1 in 5,624
- North Carolina#1,281 · 1 in 7,747
- California#3,095 · 1 in 32,345
Best ever in a state: #108 in South Dakota, 1998.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | #1,037 | 6 | 1 in 5,624 |
| North Carolina | #1,281 | 6 | 1 in 7,747 |
| California | #3,095 | 5 | 1 in 32,345 |
| Alabama | — | — | — |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | — | — | — |
| Arkansas | — | — | — |
| Colorado | — | — | — |
| Connecticut | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Florida | — | — | — |
| Georgia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Illinois | — | — | — |
| Indiana | — | — | — |
| Iowa | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Kentucky | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | — | — | — |
| Massachusetts | — | — | — |
| Michigan | — | — | — |
| Minnesota | — | — | — |
| Mississippi | — | — | — |
| Missouri | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Jersey | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| New York | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Ohio | — | — | — |
| Oklahoma | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Tennessee | — | — | — |
| Texas | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Washington | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| Wisconsin | — | — | — |
| Wyoming | — | — | — |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the girls born there that year. The SSA only publishes a name in a state when 5 or more babies of one sex got it.
See more about Jacey
Momentum · girls
Holding steady
- 393 spots since 2020 (#2,065 → #2,458)
- Biggest jump: 297 spots in 1996
- Biggest drop: 173 spots in 2012
Rise & fade · girls
35 yrs to peak
- Debuted 1965
- Peaked 2000 at #718 (322 births)
- Births halved by 2017, 17 yrs later
Top of the charts · girls
Top 1,000 for 15 yrs
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 15 yrs · run 1996–2009
Share of babies · girls
1 in 5,138
- Highest: 1 in 5,138 girls born in 2006 were named Jacey (0.02%)
- Latest: 1 in 22,323 girls born in 2025 (0.00%)
- Its best rank, #718 in 2000, was only 1 in 5,640 (0.02%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
Era · girls
The 2000s
- 40.1% of all girls named Jacey (3,226) were born in this decade
Girls or boys?
Never flipped
- The majority has never changed
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 15 | #4,723 (1969) | #5,631 |
| 1970s | 222 | #2,125 (1978) | #3,700 |
| 1980s | 482 | #1,701 (1989) | #2,250 |
| 1990s | 1,717 | #778 (1999) | #1,156 |
| 2000s | 3,226 | #718 (2000) | #802 |
| 2010s | 1,896 | #882 (2011) | #1,329 |
| 2020s | 486 | #2,065 (2020) | #2,274 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 girls in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Want to check a specific year?
See where Jacey ranked and which names it was up against. Click a point on the chart, or pick a year: