This policy outlines the framework that the MOE uses to assess and manage the risk to the children participating in all of its programs, including any donor-funded programs, and the measures and systems put in place to respond to concerns about their wellbeing.

From 2016 through 2020, Child Trends, in partnership with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education, and with funding from the National Institute of Justice's Comprehensive School Safety Initiative, implemented and evaluated the Safe School Certification (SSC) Program, a three-year technical assistance model to support schools in strengthening organizational capacity across eight elements key to improving school climate: leadership, data, buy-in, policy and policy enforcement, student engagement, family and community engagement, training, and programs and practices. To help support schools' efforts, and to evaluate SSC's effectiveness, survey data were collected annually from students, parents, instructional staff, and non-instructional staff at participating schools using the U.S. Department of Education's School Climate Survey (EDSCLS), which was adapted to include measures of sexual orientation and gender identity, grit, and personal experiences of bullying and fights. Additionally, observations using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System - Secondary (CLASS-S) were conducted in a random sample of five classrooms in each participating school each year. Finally, as part of the implementation evaluation, interviews were conducted with the technical assistance providers, points of contact or leadership at participating schools, the SSC developer, and the manager of the Certification Advisory Board (CAB), which provided feedback to schools over the course of implementation through reviews of compiled workbooks.

Users can view brief descriptions of laws and policies pertaining to the health of students Topics include: wellness policy, health education curriculum, school meal programs, physical activity, emergency response, bullying, and facility safety, among others. Background The State School Health Policy Database was developed by the National Association of State Boards of Education and is supported by the Division of Adolescent and School Health of the Centers (DASH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This database is useful for school policymakers interested in viewing strategies and policies across states and researchers and policy evaluators seeking to track changes in polici es across the United States. Topics include: wellness policies, health education curriculum; school meal programs, school food environment, physical activity, drug-free schools, bullying, emergency response, tobacco use, air quality, pesticide use, and facility safety. User Functionality Users can view brief descriptions of laws and policies pertaining to the health of students. When possible, hyperlinks to full written policies are included. Data Notes The data base is updated regularly with new and revised laws and policies from across the United States.

This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the standard trends questions, instead focusing on public opinion in the following major areas: consumer rights, personal data protection, education through sport, product safety, e-commerce, persons with disabilities, and national currency. Respondents were asked about opportunities to settle disputes with a seller or service provider including actions taken to settle dispute and type of product or service. A number of questions asked regarded the current justice system including the respondents' level of trust in the system, areas that need improvement, and what resources are available to protect consumer rights. Respondents were also asked about whether they were concerned with the privacy of their personal data. Questions sought the respondents' level of trust in national organizations, opinion of what data protection laws should entail, and whether they had used tools or technology to protect personal data. Respondents were also asked about their participation in sports activities. Questions included how often they perform recreational activities, where they exercise, what are the benefits and values of sports, and what are the anticipated outcomes due to the negative aspects of sports. Regarding safety instructions, respondents were asked if they purchase domestic electrical appliances. A number of questions focused on product safety information. Respondents were asked whether they read and obey the information provided on the product, whether the information impacted their purchase and/or use of the product, and the most effective way to provide product instructions. Several questions asked the respondent to recognize safety symbols labeled on the product, the symbol's effectiveness, and whether it impacted their purchase decision. Respondents were also asked whether they purchased products on the internet, how often, concerns regarding their internet transactions, why they purchased online, and from what Web sites they purchased. Other questions asked regarded the security of internet transactions including the respondents knowledge of consumer rights, internet security, protection laws concerning internet purchases, who they contacted if help was needed, and their past experience with complaints on internet transactions. Respondents were also asked questions about persons with disabilities including knowledge of European programs for persons with disabilities, their knowledge of various types of disabilities, and their view of persons with disabilities. Lastly, respondents in the euro-zone, were asked questions that pertained to national currency including how pleased they were with the establishment of the Euro as the universal currency. Demographic and other background information collected includes respondents' age, gender, marital status, nationality, left-right political self-placement, age at completion of education, occupation, household income group, type and size of locality, and region of residence.

This research topic focuses on understanding how Information Security Policy Compliance (ISPC) influences the protection of patient privacy within healthcare organizations, with a specific focus on the mediating role of Security Education, Training, and Awareness (SETA) programs.

The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) is managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on behalf of the United States Department of Education (ED). SSOCS collects extensive crime and safety data from principals and school administrators of United States public schools. Data from this collection can be used to examine the relationship between school characteristics and violent and serious violent crimes in primary schools, middle schools, high schools, and combined schools. In addition, data from SSOCS can be used to assess what crime prevention programs, practices, and policies are used by schools. SSOCS has been conducted in school years 1999-2000, 2003-2004, and 2005-2006. A fourth collection is planned for school year 2007-2008. SSOCS:2006 was conducted by the United States Census Bureau. Data collection began on March 17, 2006, when questionnaire packets were mailed to schools, and continued through May 31, 2006. A total of 2,724 public schools submitted usable questionnaires: 715 primary schools, 948 middle schools, 924 high schools, and 137 combined schools.

The indicator measures the number who had previously been the subject of a child protection plan, or on the child protection register of that council, regardless of how long ago that was against the number of children subject to a child protection plan at any time during the Year, expressed as a percentage

Source: CPR3 statutory return form local authorities to Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF).

Publisher: DCLG Floor Targets Interactive

Geographies: County/Unitary Authority, Government Office Region (GOR), National

Geographic coverage: England

Time coverage: 2006/07 to 2008/09

Type of data: Administrative data

Notes: This is a count of each occasion in the year, and may count the same child more than once.

The indicator measures the number of children who had been the subject of a Child Protection Plan continuously for two years or longer against the number of children ceasing to be the subject of a Child Protection Plan during the year, expressed as percentage

Source: CPR3 statutory return form local authorities to Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF).

Publisher: DCLG Floor Targets Interactive

Geographies: County/Unitary Authority, Government Office Region (GOR), National

Geographic coverage: England

Time coverage: 2006/07 to 2008/09

Type of data: Administrative data

This dataset provides a comprehensive overview of lead levels in public school water samples collected from consumption and non-consumption points in Delaware from 2021 to 2022. The data is sourced from the Department of Education and offers detailed insights into sample collection dates, results, and compliance with Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). The dataset is structured to include key metrics such as sample number, label, sample date, received date, district, school, sample point, result, MCL, consumption point, and additional sampling completed, providing a robust foundation for analyzing lead contamination trends and public health risks.

Key Features

• Sample Identification: The dataset includes unique identifiers for each sample, such as sample number and label, facilitating easy identification and tracking of sample records.
• Temporal Precision: Information is presented by sample date and received date, allowing for detailed analysis of sample collection and processing timelines.
• Geographic Location: Data is segmented by district and school, providing insights into lead contamination patterns across different regions and schools.
• Sample Point Details: The dataset includes detailed descriptions of sample points, such as fixture location and consumption point status, enabling analysis of lead contamination in drinking water and non-drinking water fixtures.
• Result and Compliance: Information is categorized by lead result and MCL, offering insights into compliance with regulatory standards.

Potential Uses

• Public Health Analysis: Assist in understanding lead contamination trends and public health risks, which is crucial for public health planning and policy development.
• School Safety Evaluation: Support school safety evaluation by providing detailed data on lead levels in school water samples.
• Policy Development: Inform policymakers in developing and adjusting regulations and guidelines related to lead contamination in public water systems.
• Strategic Planning: Provide insights into lead contamination patterns, informing strategic planning for water quality management and remediation efforts.
• Research and Academic Studies: Enable research and academic studies on lead contamination, public health, and environmental safety.

Despite the critical information security issues faced by academic institutions, little research has been conducted at the policy, practice, or theoretical levels to address these issues, and few policies or cost-effective controls have been developed. The purpose of this research study was three-fold: (1) to create an empirically-based profile of issues and approaches, (2) to develop a practical road map for policy and practice, and (3) to advance the knowledge, policy, and practice of academic institutions, law enforcement, government, and researchers. The study design incorporated three methods of data collection: a quantitative field survey, qualitative one-on-one interviews, and an empirical assessment of the institutions' network activity. Survey data collection involved simple random sampling of 600 academic institutions from the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, recruitment via postcard, telephone, and email, Web-based survey administration, and three follow-ups. Results are contained in Part 1, Quantitative Field Survey Data. Interview data collection involved selecting a sample size of 15 institutions through a combination of simple random and convenience sampling, recruitment via telephone and email, and face-to-face or telephone interviews. Results are contained in Part 2, Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data. Network analysis data collection involved convenience sampling of two academic institutions, recruitment via telephone and email, installing Higher Education Network Analysis (HENA) on participants' systems, and six months of data collection. Results are in Part 3, Subject 1 Network Analysis Data, and Part 4, Subject 2 Network Analysis Data. The Quantitative Field Survey Data (Part 1) contains 19 variables on characteristics of institutions that participated in the survey component of this study, as well as 263 variables derived from responses to the Information Security in Academic Institutions Survey, which was organized into five sections: Environment, Policy, Information Security Controls, Information Security Challenges, and Resources. The Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data (Part 2) contains qualitative responses to a combination of closed-response and open-response formats. The data are divided into the following seven sections: Environment, Institution's Potential Vulnerability, Institution's Potential Threat, Information Value and Sharing, End Users, Countermeasures, and Insights. Data collected through the empirical analysis of network activity (Part 3 and Part 4) include type and protocol of attack, source and destination information, and geographic location.

This is a multi-method study of school violence and victimization during the transition to high school. This study has two major data collection efforts. First, a full population survey of 7th through 10th grade students across 10 Flint Community Schools (fall 2016) -- which serve primarily African American and poor populations -- that will identify patterns of student victimization, including the location and seriousness of violent events, and examine the connections between school and community violence. This will be followed by a three-wave panel qualitative study of 100 students interviewed every 6 months beginning in the spring of their 8th grade year (spring 2017) and continuing through their 9th grade year. The goal of the interviews will be to further the research from the survey and develop a deeper understanding of how school safety impacts the transition experience, school violence, including how communities conflict impacts school safety, and what youth do to protect themselves from school-related victimization. Researchers integrated crime incident data from the Flint police department as a source for triangulation of findings. A community workgroup will provide guided translation of findings generated from mixed-methods analyses, and develop an action plan to help students successfully transition to high school. Results and policy implications will be given to practitioner, researcher, and public audiences through written, oral, and web-based forums. De-identified data will be archived at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data.

Description of the experiment setting: location, influential climatic conditions, controlled conditions (e.g. temperature, light cycle)In Fall of 2023 the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) conducted the fourth Farm to School Census. The 2023 Census was sent via email to 18,833 school food authorities (SFAs) including all public, private, and charter SFAs, as well as residential care institutions, participating in the National School Lunch Program. The questionnaire collected data on local food purchasing, edible school gardens, other farm to school activities and policies, and outcomes and challenges of participating in farm to school activities. A total of 12,559 SFAs submitted a response to the 2023 Census.Processing methods and equipment usedThe 2023 Census was administered solely via the web. The study team cleaned the raw data to ensure the data were as correct, complete, and consistent as possible. This process involved examining the data for logical errors and removing implausible values. The study team linked the 2023 Census data to information from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD). Records from the CCD were used to construct a measure of urbanicity, which classifies the area in which schools are located.Study date(s) and durationData collection occurred from October 2, 2023 to January 7, 2024. Questions asked about activities prior to, during and after SY 2022-23. The 2023 Census asked SFAs whether they currently participated in, had ever participated in or planned to participate in any of 32 farm to school activities. Based on those answers, SFAs received a defined set of further questions.Study spatial scale (size of replicates and spatial scale of study area)Respondents to the survey included SFAs from all 50 States as well as American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC.Level of true replicationUnknownSampling precision (within-replicate sampling or pseudoreplication)No sampling was involved in the collection of this data.Level of subsampling (number and repeat or within-replicate sampling)No sampling was involved in the collection of this data.Study design (before–after, control–impacts, time series, before–after-control–impacts)None – Non-experimentalDescription of any data manipulation, modeling, or statistical analysis undertakenEach entry in the dataset contains SFA-level responses to the Census questionnaire for SFAs that responded. This file includes information from only SFAs that clicked “Submit” on the questionnaire. (The dataset used to create the 2023 Farm to School Census Report includes additional SFAs that answered enough questions for their response to be considered usable.)In addition, the file contains constructed variables used for analytic purposes. The file does not include weights created to produce national estimates for the 2023 Farm to School Census Report.The dataset identified SFAs, but to protect individual privacy the file does not include any information for the individual who completed the questionnaire. All responses to open-ended questions (i.e., containing user-supplied text) were also removed to protect privacy.Description of any gaps in the data or other limiting factorsSee the full 2023 Farm to School Census Report [https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/f2s/2023-census] for a detailed explanation of the study’s limitations.Outcome measurement methods and equipment usedNone

The global data protection software market is approximated at a valuation of US$ 1.97 billion in 2024 and is forecasted to increase at a CAGR of 28% to reach US$ 23.2 billion by 2034-end.

Report Attribute	Detail
Data Protection Software Market Size (2024E)	US$ 1.97 Billion
Forecasted Market Value (2034F)	US$ 23.2 Billion
Global Market Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	28% CAGR
South Korea Market Value (2034F)	US$ 1.24 Billion
On-premise Data Protection Software Demand Growth (2024 to 2034)	27.4% CAGR
Key Companies Profiled	McAfee, LLC; TrustArc Inc.; OneTrust LLC; Commvault; Microsoft Corporation; Varonis Systems, Inc.; Micro Focus International Plc.; Forcepoint LLC; IBM Corporation; SAP SE; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Symantec Corporation; NetApp, Inc.; Veeam Software; RSA Security LLC; Informatica LLC; Proofpoint, Inc.; Veritas Technologies; Dell EMC; Cloudian, Inc.; Bitdefender; Spirion LLC; Integris Software Inc.; Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE); Check Point Software Technologies.

Country-wise Analysis

Attribute	United States
Market Value (2024E)	US$ 209.1 Million
Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	28.5% CAGR
Projected Value (2034F)	US$ 2.57 Billion

Attribute	Japan
Market Value (2024E)	US$ 127.3 Million
Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	28.6% CAGR
Projected Value (2034F)	US$ 1.58 Billion

Category-wise Analysis

Attribute	Cloud-based Data Protection Software Solutions
Segment Value (2024E)	US$ 1.14 Billion
Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	28.4% CAGR
Projected Value (2034F)	US$ 13.9 Billio

Attribute	SMEs
Segment Value (2024E)	US$ 1.26 Billion
Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	27.4% CAGR
Projected Value (2034F)	US$ 14.2 Billion

This dataset shows all school level performance data used to create CPS School Report Cards for the 2011-2012 school year. Metrics are described as follows (also available for download at http://bit.ly/uhbzah): NDA indicates "No Data Available." SAFETY ICON: Student Perception/Safety category from 5 Essentials survey // SAFETY SCORE: Student Perception/Safety score from 5 Essentials survey // FAMILY INVOLVEMENT ICON: Involved Families category from 5 Essentials survey // FAMILY INVOLVEMENT SCORE: Involved Families score from 5 Essentials survey // ENVIRONMENT ICON: Supportive Environment category from 5 Essentials survey // ENVIRONMENT SCORE: Supportive Environment score from 5 Essentials survey // INSTRUCTION ICON: Ambitious Instruction category from 5 Essentials survey // INSTRUCTION SCORE: Ambitious Instruction score from 5 Essentials survey // LEADERS ICON: Effective Leaders category from 5 Essentials survey // LEADERS SCORE: Effective Leaders score from 5 Essentials survey // TEACHERS ICON: Collaborative Teachers category from 5 Essentials survey // TEACHERS SCORE: Collaborative Teachers score from 5 Essentials survey // PARENT ENGAGEMENT ICON: Parent Perception/Engagement category from parent survey // PARENT ENGAGEMENT SCORE: Parent Perception/Engagement score from parent survey // AVERAGE STUDENT ATTENDANCE: Average daily student attendance // RATE OF MISCONDUCTS (PER 100 STUDENTS): # of misconducts per 100 students//AVERAGE TEACHER ATTENDANCE: Average daily teacher attendance // INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM COMPLIANCE RATE: % of IEPs and 504 plans completed by due date // PK-2 LITERACY: % of students at benchmark on DIBELS or IDEL // PK-2 MATH: % of students at benchmark on mClass // GR3-5 GRADE LEVEL MATH: % of students at grade level, math, grades 3-5 // GR3-5 GRADE LEVEL READ: % of students at grade level, reading, grades 3-5 // GR3-5 KEEP PACE READ: % of students meeting growth targets, reading, grades 3-5 // GR3-5 KEEP PACE MATH: % of students meeting growth targets, math, grades 3-5 // GR6-8 GRADE LEVEL MATH: % of students at grade level, math, grades 6-8 // GR6-8 GRADE LEVEL READ: % of students at grade level, reading, grades 6-8 // GR6-8 KEEP PACE MATH: % of students meeting growth targets, math, grades 6-8 // GR6-8 KEEP PACE READ: % of students meeting growth targets, reading, grades 6-8 // GR-8 EXPLORE MATH: % of students at college readiness benchmark, math // GR-8 EXPLORE READ: % of students at college readiness benchmark, reading // ISAT EXCEEDING MATH: % of students exceeding on ISAT, math // ISAT EXCEEDING READ: % of students exceeding on ISAT, reading // ISAT VALUE ADD MATH: ISAT value-add value, math // ISAT VALUE ADD READ: ISAT value-add value, reading // ISAT VALUE ADD COLOR MATH: ISAT value-add color, math // ISAT VALUE ADD COLOR READ: ISAT value-add color, reading // STUDENTS TAKING ALGEBRA: % of students taking algebra // STUDENTS PASSING ALGEBRA: % of students passing algebra // 9TH GRADE EXPLORE (2009): Average EXPLORE score, 9th graders who tested in fall 2009 // 9TH GRADE EXPLORE (2010): Average EXPLORE score, 9th graders who tested in fall 2010 // 10TH GRADE PLAN (2009): Average PLAN score, 10th graders who tested in fall 2009 // 10TH GRADE PLAN (2010): Average PLAN score, 10th graders who tested in fall 2010 // NET CHANGE EXPLORE AND PLAN: Difference between Grade 9 Explore (2009) and Grade 10 Plan (2010) // 11TH GRADE AVERAGE ACT (2011): Average ACT score, 11th graders who tested in fall 2011 // NET CHANGE PLAN AND ACT: Difference between Grade 10 Plan (2009) and Grade 11 ACT (2011) // COLLEGE ELIGIBILITY: % of graduates eligible for a selective four-year college // GRADUATION RATE: % of students who have graduated within five years // COLLEGE/ ENROLLMENT RATE: % of students enrolled in college // COLLEGE ENROLLMENT (NUMBER OF STUDENTS): Total school enrollment // FRESHMAN ON TRACK RATE: Freshmen On-Track rate // RCDTS: Region County District Type Schools Code

The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) collects information on crime and safety from U.S. public school principals. SSOCS was administered in the spring of 2000 and again in the spring of 2004. SSOCS is a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of 3,000 public elementary and secondary schools. Data are collected on such topics as frequency and types of crimes at school, frequency and types of disciplinary actions at school, perceptions of other disciplinary problems, and descriptions of school policies and programs concerning crime and safety.

The 2016 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2016) is a data collection that is part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety program; program data are available since 2000 at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/data_products.asp. SSOCS:2016 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/) is a cross-sectional survey of the nation's public schools designed to provide estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs and policies. Regular public schools were sampled. The data collection was conducted using a mail questionnaire with telephone follow-up. The data collection’s response rate was 62.9 percent. Key statistics produced from SSOCS:2016 include the frequency and types of disciplinary actions taken for select offenses; perceptions of other disciplinary problems, such as bullying, verbal abuse and disorder in the classroom; the presence and role of school security staff; parent and community involvement; staff training; mental health services available to students; and school policies and programs concerning crime and safety.

This study examined safety and security in Finnish schools as well as preparedness for safety disturbances and detrimental behaviour in the school environment. The respondents of the survey were rectors and vice rectors in Finnish primary and upper secondary schools. The study was commissioned and funded by the Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy at the University of Helsinki. Three different questionnaires were used to collect the data depending on the type of the institution (primary school, upper secondary school, combined primary and upper secondary school). The data were processed according to the questionnaire for primary schools because primary schools constituted the majority of responses, but variables specific to a certain type of institution are indicated in the data. First, the study charted background information concerning e.g. class sizes in the school, how long the respondent had worked for the school, which grades were taught in the school, and how many times during a given day students had to switch from one classroom to another. It was also queried whether a school social worker, a school psychologist and a school nurse/doctor visited the school at least once per week. The next questions covered the school environment with questions regarding whether a variety of phenomena occurred near the school premises, e.g. panhandling, littering, drug use/sale or vandalism. It was also charted which services and locations were found within 500 metres of the school building as well as what sort of security personnel worked at the school during and outside school hours. The respondents were also asked whether syringes or other items relating to drug use had been found on school premises during the school year 2015-2016. The next questions pertained to whether the school had adopted specific security-increasing practices, such as camera surveillance, access control in school buildings, personal user accounts and passwords for computers, restricted access to internet sites, anti-bullying campaigns, and collaboration with the police. It was also queried what sort of punishments the school used for student misbehaviour (e.g. removing a student from class, teacher-parent discussion, detention or expulsion). Next, incidents of criminal behaviour against the school and the school building were examined (e.g. intentional damage to school or staff property, breaking and entering into school premises, arson or attempted arson, harm to information systems). It was also asked if any crimes had been reported to the police and what the monetary extent of intentional damage to school property had been during the school year 2015-2016. Cases of defamation, violence or threat of violence against personnel were charted, as well as how many days staff members had spent absent from work due to these crimes during the school year 2015-2016. Different crimes against students were also charted, such as bicycle and cellphone thefts and violence, as well as whether these cases were reported to the police. Further questions were asked about the perpetrators and victims of violent crimes, such as their gender and national background, and whether the crime was motivated by e.g. skin colour or sexual orientation. Next, the study surveyed whether students or other persons had brought dangerous items, such as knives or other weapons, into school premises during school hours and whether the school had reported these incidents to the police. Certain phenomena, such as racism among students and between students and teachers, were also charted. General threats of violence not against any particular person were also examined as well as whether there was any sign that the maker of the threat would have been preparing to carry out the act. The respondents were also asked if the school had carried out different surveillance and security measures during the school year 2015-2016 (e.g. searching students' bags, clothes or lockers; confiscating dangerous items, alcohol or drugs) and whether these measures had prevented an act or threat of violence or if they had caused a threatening situation. Finally, it was queried whether any students or their parents had threatened the respondent or teachers with legal action or reported a crime to the police where the respondent or teachers were accused. In addition, the respondents' preparedness to report a student's crime to the police in two hypothetical situations was examined (a student paints a graffiti on the school's wall; a student hits another student in the face, causing bruises and bleeding from the nose). The study finally surveyed some more background information on e.g. gender, age, and how many years the respondent had worked as rector or vice rector.

Rreferrals, assessment and children and young people who are the subjects of child protection plans (on the child protection register) from year ending March 2009

The School Nutrition Association State Policy Index is focused on childhood nutrition. Users are able to search for policy related to school nutrition, food safety and childhood nutrition. Background The School Nutrition Association State Policy Index is maintained by the School Nutrition Association. The School Nutrition Association is a non-profit organization representing more than 55,000 members who provide high-quality, low-cost meals to students across the country. The School Nutrition Association is recognized as the authority on school nutrition, the School Nutrition Association (SNA) has been advancing the availability, quality and acceptance of school nutr ition programs as an integral part of education since 1946. The state policy index covers a range of topic including after school snacks, child care feeding, food distribution, food handlers, food safety, food sales on school grounds, health permits, nutrition education, school breakfast, school lunch, milk programs, summer feeding and vending machines. User functionality Users are able to search by state and statue name and topic. After a search users are provided with a list of relevant legislature. Users are able to see the policy name, id and complete text. A website is also provided when relevant. Data Notes All data is presented is presented in html format. The website does not indicate how often it is updated.