Table 2.

Relative Ratios^a Comparing Fast Food Restaurant Availability^b by Neighborhood^c Income^d Tertile Within Year and School Racial or Ethnic Student Majority,^e Stratified by Urbanicity^f

			Racial/ethnic majority of students in schools
	All schools combined		Latino		White		No racial/ethnic majority		African Americang		Asiang
School neighborhood income tertiles	2000	2010	2000	2010	2000	2010	2000	2010	2000	2010	2000	2010
Urban
Lowest (ref)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Middle	0.79***	0.77***	0.78***	0.75***	0.74	0.75	0.87	0.9	0.98	1.05	0.28***	0.25***
Highest	0.65***	0.59***	0.64***	0.57***	0.58***	0.55***	0.65***	0.67***	0.53	0.55	0.26***	0.23***
Non-urban
Lowest (ref)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	—	—	—	—
Middle	0.98	1.06	1.25*	1.36**	0.89	1.01	0.78	0.79	—	—	—	—
Highest	0.82**	0.86*	0.97	0.93	0.84	0.91	0.68**	0.71**	—	—	—	—

Note: Boldface indicates statistical significance (*p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001).

^aCalculated as relative ratios, denoting the difference in the mean count of fast food restaurants in the middle and highest school neighborhood income tertiles relative to the lowest income tertile separately within each year (2000 or 2010).

^bAvailability was defined as the number of chain and non-chain fast food restaurants within a 0.75 mile service area of a school.

^cDefined based the census tract in which the school was located.

^dMedian annual household income, classified into tertiles (based on U.S. Census data, 2000).^36–37 The reference group is the lowest neighborhood income tertile.

^e>50% of the student body in each racial/ethnic classification (based on data from the California Department of Education, 2010).³⁴

^fUrban or non-urban (rural, suburban, second city) households in the census tract (based on data from Nielsen PRIZM urbanization measures, 2013).³⁸

^gSample sizes for non-urban areas for these groups were insufficient to generate stable estimates, thus estimates were excluded or not available.