Table 3.

Linear Regression Models Examining the Association between State Laws and District Policies by WSCC Domain

Domain	Unadjusted Models			Adjusted ‡ Models
	Coef. †	95% CI	p‐value	Coef. †	95% CI	p‐value
Community involvement	−0.08	−0.18, 0.01	.068	−0.13	−0.24, −0.02	.017
Counseling, psychological, and social services	−0.44	−0.57, −0.31	<.001	−0.23	−0.36, −0.10	.001
Employee wellness	0.14	−0.00, 0.28	.051	0.01	−0.13, 0.15	.877
Family engagement	0.03	−0.09, 0.14	.620	0.41	0.28, 0.54	<.001
Health education	−0.39	−0.48, −0.30	<.001	−0.74	−0.93, −0.55	<.001
Health services	0.56	0.46, 0.66	<.001	0.50	0.39, 0.62	<.001
Nutrition environment and services	0.10	−0.04, 0.24	.147	−0.05	−0.23, 0.13	0.608
Physical activity and education	0.90	0.72, 1.08	<.001	0.57	0.29, 0.86	<.001
Physical environment	0.07	−0.02, 0.17	.139	0.01	−0.12, 0.13	.912
Social and emotional climate	0.33	0.23, 0.43	<.001	0.34	0.23, 0.45	<.001
Overall (all items)	0.12	0.02, 0.21	.015	0.26	0.14, 0.38	<.001

CI = confidence interval; Coef., coefficient.

^†The coefficients represent the change in district policy scores within the given domain associated with a 1‐point increase in the percentage of items addressed in the state laws.

^‡Adjusted for characteristics noted in Table 1 (majority race/ethnicity of district students, free/reduced‐price lunch eligibility tertiles, urbanicity/locale, district size, and Census region). Adjusted models include 355 districts because free/reduced‐price lunch data were missing for 13 districts. Items in bold represent statistically significant associations between state laws and district policies at the p < .05 threshold or lower.