Lacey
#738 for girls in 2025, 370 births · Last seen for boys in 2021 at #12,146
Given to girls 97.4% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 1984 · 2,399 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 53,774since 1888
Lacey over time
Rank among girls' names. Lacey has never cracked the top 100 here.
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 | #738 | 370 | — | |
| 2024 | #744 | 378 | — | |
| 2023 | #759 | 370 | — | |
| 2022 | #877 | 317 | — | |
| 2021 | #806 | 346 | #12,146 | 5 |
| 2020 | #712 | 394 | — | |
| 2019 | #656 | 446 | #12,145 | 5 |
| 2018 | #651 | 457 | — | |
| 2017 | #601 | 502 | — | |
| 2016 | #487 | 638 | — | |
| 2015 | #478 | 676 | — | |
| 2014 | #480 | 655 | — | |
| 2013 | #466 | 658 | #10,728 | 6 |
| 2012 | #493 | 623 | — | |
| 2011 | #440 | 708 | — | |
| 2010 | #436 | 705 | — | |
| 2009 | #432 | 740 | #9,864 | 7 |
| 2008 | #407 | 795 | — | |
| 2007 | #390 | 839 | #12,367 | 5 |
| 2006 | #448 | 712 | — | |
| 2005 | #438 | 696 | — | |
| 2004 | #424 | 714 | #6,976 | 10 |
| 2003 | #371 | 813 | #7,831 | 8 |
| 2002 | #470 | 602 | #7,643 | 8 |
| 2001 | #415 | 693 | #10,556 | 5 |
| 2000 | #371 | 793 | — | |
| 1999 | #345 | 867 | #7,139 | 8 |
| 1998 | #321 | 941 | #9,631 | 5 |
| 1997 | #290 | 989 | #7,281 | 7 |
| 1996 | #277 | 1,053 | #4,396 | 14 |
| 1995 | #236 | 1,210 | #6,992 | 7 |
| 1994 | #209 | 1,398 | #4,803 | 12 |
| 1993 | #192 | 1,522 | #6,228 | 8 |
| 1992 | #173 | 1,754 | #3,220 | 20 |
| 1991 | #145 | 2,071 | #3,462 | 17 |
| 1990 | #148 | 2,047 | #3,779 | 15 |
| 1989 | #143 | 2,076 | #3,094 | 19 |
| 1988 | #129 | 2,243 | #2,765 | 20 |
| 1987 | #117 | 2,399 | #2,641 | 20 |
| 1986 | #121 | 2,266 | #3,268 | 14 |
| 1985 | #124 | 2,359 | #2,504 | 20 |
| 1984 | #116 | 2,399 | #2,364 | 21 |
| 1983 | #128 | 2,383 | #2,140 | 24 |
| 1982 | #124 | 2,382 | #2,207 | 23 |
| 1981 | #194 | 1,369 | #2,138 | 24 |
| 1980 | #277 | 897 | #2,617 | 18 |
| 1979 | #303 | 790 | #3,569 | 11 |
| 1978 | #293 | 787 | #2,568 | 17 |
| 1977 | #573 | 304 | #3,386 | 11 |
| 1976 | #637 | 242 | #2,329 | 19 |
| 1975 | #565 | 294 | #2,450 | 17 |
| 1974 | #1,284 | 83 | #2,674 | 14 |
| 1973 | #1,160 | 94 | #3,013 | 11 |
| 1972 | #1,404 | 70 | #1,819 | 24 |
| 1971 | #1,467 | 70 | #2,813 | 12 |
| 1970 | #1,247 | 89 | #1,989 | 20 |
| 1969 | #1,453 | 65 | #2,217 | 15 |
| 1968 | #1,539 | 55 | #1,962 | 17 |
| 1967 | #2,117 | 31 | #1,609 | 23 |
| 1966 | #2,308 | 27 | #2,327 | 12 |
| 1965 | #2,064 | 32 | #2,617 | 10 |
| 1964 | #2,475 | 25 | #2,310 | 13 |
| 1963 | #2,015 | 34 | #2,044 | 16 |
| 1962 | #1,511 | 55 | #1,962 | 17 |
| 1961 | #2,250 | 28 | #1,997 | 17 |
| 1960 | #2,820 | 19 | #2,042 | 16 |
| 1959 | #2,760 | 18 | #2,295 | 13 |
| 1958 | #2,755 | 18 | #2,026 | 16 |
| 1957 | #2,347 | 23 | #2,494 | 11 |
| 1956 | #3,493 | 12 | #1,821 | 19 |
| 1955 | #2,839 | 16 | #1,979 | 16 |
| 1954 | #2,519 | 19 | #1,887 | 17 |
| 1953 | #2,699 | 16 | #1,709 | 20 |
| 1952 | #3,552 | 10 | #1,461 | 27 |
| 1951 | #4,833 | 6 | #2,495 | 10 |
| 1950 | #4,315 | 7 | #1,572 | 22 |
| 1949 | #2,999 | 12 | #1,409 | 27 |
| 1948 | #3,883 | 8 | #1,758 | 18 |
| 1947 | #2,898 | 13 | #2,169 | 13 |
| 1946 | #4,417 | 6 | #2,534 | 9 |
| 1945 | #3,676 | 7 | #2,131 | 11 |
| 1944 | #2,946 | 10 | #2,309 | 10 |
| 1943 | #4,196 | 6 | #2,074 | 13 |
| 1942 | #3,738 | 7 | #2,145 | 12 |
| 1941 | #4,420 | 5 | #1,446 | 22 |
| 1940 | #3,863 | 6 | #1,802 | 15 |
| 1939 | #3,782 | 6 | #1,795 | 15 |
| 1938 | — | #2,084 | 12 | |
| 1937 | — | #2,479 | 9 | |
| 1936 | #4,181 | 5 | #1,639 | 17 |
| 1935 | — | #1,422 | 23 | |
| 1934 | — | #1,725 | 17 | |
| 1933 | #3,753 | 6 | #1,498 | 21 |
| 1932 | — | #3,361 | 6 | |
| 1931 | — | #3,763 | 5 | |
| 1930 | #4,550 | 5 | #2,444 | 11 |
| 1929 | — | #1,731 | 19 | |
| 1928 | — | #1,902 | 17 | |
| 1927 | — | #1,959 | 17 | |
| 1926 | #4,851 | 5 | #1,981 | 16 |
| 1925 | #3,664 | 8 | #2,089 | 15 |
| 1924 | #4,002 | 7 | #1,964 | 17 |
| 1923 | — | #1,753 | 20 | |
| 1922 | #4,011 | 7 | #2,040 | 16 |
| 1921 | #4,023 | 7 | #1,588 | 23 |
| 1920 | — | #2,602 | 11 | |
| 1919 | — | #1,695 | 20 | |
| 1918 | — | #2,882 | 9 | |
| 1917 | #3,344 | 8 | #1,986 | 15 |
| 1916 | #3,552 | 7 | #2,043 | 14 |
| 1915 | #3,134 | 8 | #2,070 | 13 |
| 1914 | — | #2,101 | 10 | |
| 1913 | — | #1,803 | 10 | |
| 1912 | — | #1,223 | 15 | |
| 1911 | — | #1,190 | 9 | |
| 1910 | — | — | ||
| 1909 | — | — | ||
| 1908 | — | — | ||
| 1907 | — | #1,094 | 7 | |
| 1906 | — | — | ||
| 1905 | — | — | ||
| 1904 | — | — | ||
| 1903 | #1,592 | 6 | — | |
| 1902 | — | #1,137 | 5 | |
| 1901 | — | #1,058 | 5 | |
| 1900 | — | #1,162 | 6 | |
| 1899 | — | — | ||
| 1898 | — | — | ||
| 1897 | — | — | ||
| 1896 | — | — | ||
| 1895 | — | — | ||
| 1894 | — | — | ||
| 1893 | — | — | ||
| 1892 | — | — | ||
| 1891 | — | — | ||
| 1890 | — | — | ||
| 1889 | — | — | ||
| 1888 | #1,276 | 5 | — | |
| 1887 | — | — | ||
| 1886 | — | #845 | 6 | |
| 1885 | — | — | ||
| 1884 | — | — | ||
| 1883 | — | — | ||
| 1882 | — | — | ||
| 1881 | — | — | ||
| 1880 | — | — | ||
The first year at least five girls were named Lacey! It came in at #1,276, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1888–1902, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Lacey is popular in 1989
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Idaho#46 · 1 in 166
- South Dakota#47 · 1 in 184
- Wyoming#50 · 1 in 164
- Montana#52 · 1 in 189
- Oklahoma#62 · 1 in 269
Best ever in a state: #27 in Wyoming, 1987.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho | #46 | 31 | 1 in 166 |
| South Dakota | #47 | 20 | 1 in 184 |
| Wyoming | #50 | 11 | 1 in 164 |
| Montana | #52 | 19 | 1 in 189 |
| Oklahoma | #62 | 64 | 1 in 269 |
| Utah | #64 | 48 | 1 in 280 |
| North Dakota | #73 | 14 | 1 in 268 |
| Washington | #74 | 79 | 1 in 373 |
| Arkansas | #76 | 39 | 1 in 320 |
| Alabama | #77 | 59 | 1 in 384 |
| Louisiana | #81 | 69 | 1 in 373 |
| Nebraska | #84 | 25 | 1 in 365 |
| Missouri | #88 | 76 | 1 in 428 |
| Oregon | #90 | 36 | 1 in 446 |
| Mississippi | #91 | 32 | 1 in 428 |
| Indiana | #92 | 75 | 1 in 458 |
| Tennessee | #92 | 62 | 1 in 480 |
| West Virginia | #100 | 19 | 1 in 463 |
| Kentucky | #102 | 38 | 1 in 560 |
| Georgia | #107 | 73 | 1 in 573 |
| Iowa | #108 | 32 | 1 in 496 |
| Kansas | #114 | 27 | 1 in 523 |
| Nevada | #122 | 11 | 1 in 559 |
| Maine | #124 | 12 | 1 in 525 |
| Colorado | #127 | 34 | 1 in 605 |
| Arizona | #128 | 36 | 1 in 706 |
| Hawaii | #129 | 9 | 1 in 561 |
| Ohio | #131 | 90 | 1 in 776 |
| South Carolina | #131 | 28 | 1 in 707 |
| Wisconsin | #135 | 39 | 1 in 751 |
| New Hampshire | #153 | 8 | 1 in 861 |
| Minnesota | #156 | 33 | 1 in 857 |
| Pennsylvania | #157 | 77 | 1 in 933 |
| Texas | #161 | 145 | 1 in 920 |
| North Carolina | #163 | 41 | 1 in 992 |
| Michigan | #169 | 62 | 1 in 975 |
| Florida | #170 | 76 | 1 in 1,013 |
| Illinois | #200 | 67 | 1 in 1,154 |
| California | #223 | 203 | 1 in 1,202 |
| Virginia | #239 | 24 | 1 in 1,546 |
| Maryland | #244 | 17 | 1 in 1,630 |
| New Mexico | #281 | 7 | 1 in 1,308 |
| Massachusetts | #290 | 19 | 1 in 2,026 |
| New York | #338 | 58 | 1 in 2,048 |
| Connecticut | #370 | 7 | 1 in 2,731 |
| New Jersey | #384 | 18 | 1 in 2,666 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
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 Lacey
- 6 spots since 2024 (#744 → #738)
- 26 spots since 2020 (#712 → #738)
- 260 spots since 2015 (#478 → #738)
- Biggest jump: 719 spots in 1975 (#1,284 → #565)
- Biggest drop: 114 spots in 2017 (#487 → #601)
- Debuted 1888
- Peaked 1984 at #116 (2,399 births)
- Births halved by 1996, 12 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 51 yrs · run 1975–2025
- Highest: 1 in 701 girls born in 1983 were named Lacey (0.14%)
- Latest: 1 in 4,344 girls born in 2025 (0.02%)
- Its best rank, #116 in 1984, was only 1 in 702 (0.14%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
- 38.6% of all girls named Lacey (20,773) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 5 | #1,276 (1888) | #1,276 |
| 1890s | 0 | — | — |
| 1900s | 6 | #1,592 (1903) | #1,592 |
| 1910s | 23 | #3,134 (1915) | #3,343 |
| 1920s | 34 | #3,664 (1925) | #4,110 |
| 1930s | 22 | #3,753 (1933) | #4,067 |
| 1940s | 80 | #2,898 (1947) | #3,704 |
| 1950s | 145 | #2,347 (1957) | #3,211 |
| 1960s | 371 | #1,453 (1969) | #2,055 |
| 1970s | 2,823 | #293 (1978) | #893 |
| 1980s | 20,773 | #116 (1984) | #147 |
| 1990s | 13,852 | #145 (1991) | #234 |
| 2000s | 7,397 | #371 (2003) | #417 |
| 2010s | 6,068 | #436 (2010) | #519 |
| 2020s | 2,175 | #712 (2020) | #773 |
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.
Lacey in 1989
Top girls' names in 1989
Top boys' names in 1989
More about 1989
girls
1,843,552 girls got a published name in 1989; 1 in 888 of them was named Lacey, which outranked 99.0% of the 14,550 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 16.9% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
2,000,928 boys got a published name in 1989; 1 in 105,312 of them was named Lacey, which outranked 66.5% of the 9,232 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 20.4% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
- #2,989Yitzchak20
- #2,989Zacharias20
- #2,989Zakkary20
- #3,094Lacey19
- #3,094Albaro19
- #3,094Anne19
- #3,094Antoni19
- #3,205Abdulrahman18
- #3,205Alaric18
- #3,205Alastair18
Tied with 110 names at #3,094; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.