Table 1. Characteristics of 9 Schools With Best Practices for Snack Policies, United States, 2013–2014.

Schools	Statea	Region	State Policy Strength Scoreb	State Childhood Obesity, %c	No. of Schools in District	Localed	Total Students	FRPL (%)e
1	California 1	West	33	30	29	City	1,200	55
2	California 2	West	33	30	12	Suburb	2,531	72
3	Illinois	Midwest	12	34	642	City	1,042	89
4	Iowa	Midwest	28	28	7	Town	431	18
5	Kansas	Southwest	1	30	9	Rural	57	84
6	Mississippi	South	47	40	10	City	895	82
7	New York	East	1	32	3	Town	513	17
8	Texas	West South Central	34	37	65	Rural	1,890	80
9	Virginia	Southeast	14	30	18	Suburb	1,294	22

Abbreviations: FRPL, free and reduced-price lunch; FSD, food service director; PE, physical education; admin, administrator.

^a Two schools were in California.

^b State law strength score calculation per Bridging the Gap school year 2012–2013 data (high school data) (9). State law strength is calculated by a rigorous coding process originally published by Schwartz et al (16) and adapted by researchers at Bridging the Gap (2010). The score measures the proportion of snack food items — specifically those in vending machines, à la carte, and in school stores — that were required by law. A requirement is considered and coded to include policy language that used words such as “shall,” “must,” “required,” as compared with weaker language such as “encourage,” “should,” “may.” Scores range from 0–100 with 100 being the highest score.

^c National Survey of Children’s Health (2011–2012) (10).

^d National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2011–2012 (11).

^e Percentage of students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunches.