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.
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 1988
Top girls' names in 1988
Top boys' names in 1988
More about 1988
girls
1,780,854 girls got a published name in 1988; 1 in 794 of them was named Lacey, which outranked 99.1% of the 13,883 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 17.3% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,914,283 boys got a published name in 1988; 1 in 95,714 of them was named Lacey, which outranked 67.5% of the 8,495 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 21.4% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
- #2,682Wiliam21
- #2,682Xzavier21
- #2,682Zenas21
- #2,765Lacey20
- #2,765Abbas20
- #2,765Adriana20
- #2,765Alastair20
- #2,860Adolphus19
- #2,860Alvis19
- #2,860Angelica19
Tied with 94 names at #2,765; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.