Strength and conditioning facilities (SCFs) have become an integral component of high schools for use in physical education, athletics, and community wellness programs. The rapid growth and use of high school SCFs creates a need to research and better understand these vital facilities. This study was developed to gather descriptive and quantitative data on the secondary SCFs in a US Midwestern state and to assess the impact of the NSCA certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) on factors such as equipment, facility size, and safety/utilization. A total of 390 questionnaires were distributed via email to high school athletic directors in the state. A 70-item survey instrument, developed with expert input from certified strength professionals, was utilized to collect data regarding the SCFs in high schools throughout this state. This survey was formatted for online completion using the InQsit system. All descriptive and one-way ANOVA statistical analyses were conducted on SPSS 15.0 with a p < .05 significance level. A total of 108 valid and complete surveys were returned for a response rate of 27.7%. These results were balanced amongst all five school enrollment levels (1A to 5A) with 22.2% class 1A, 20.4% class 2A, 11.1% class 3A, 18.5% class 4A, and 27.8% class 5A. There were significant differences in equipment, facility size, and safety factors between school facilities with CSCS leadership and those without CSCS leadership. There were significantly greater numbers of bench press stations in CSCS led facilities (7.33 per school) than non-CSCS led facilities (4.89 per school), F(1,105) = 11.20, p = .001. The 8.86 mean number of squat stations for CSCS led facilities were significantly greater than the 4.49 mean squat stations for non-CSCS led facilities, F(1,105) = 15.60, p < .001. Additionally the mean number of power clean stations were significantly greater for CSCS led schools at 8.81 to 3.47 for non-CSCS led schools, F(1,105) = 20.26, p < .001. The average number of Olympic bars were significantly higher in CSCS led schools at 25.00 compared to 12.85 for non-CSCS led schools F(1,104) = 22.84, p < .001. Mean facility size measured in square footage was significantly greater for CSCS led schools at 4283 square feet compared to 2434 square feet for non-CSCS led schools, F(1,87) = 9.21, p = .003. From a safety/utilization perspective the level of daily facility student use is significantly greater, F(1,104) = 15.56, p < .001, for CSCS led schools with an average of 278.1 users compared to 140.7 daily users in non-CSCS led facilities. Additionally, the maximum safe capacity estimated for each facility was significantly greater, F(1,104) = 10.42, p = .002, for CSCS operated facilities with a mean capacity of 75.7 than for non-CSCS led facilities with a mean capacity of 47.7. The leadership of a CSCS in interscholastic programs impacts facility size, the selection of equipment, and safety/utilization. It appears the CSCS's application of their scientific knowledge goes beyond training athletes for the goal of improving athletic performance as it actually influences the SCF. Athletic administrators at the high school level need to recognize the impact CSCS program leadership can have on the overall quality of the strength and conditioning program. Future research should expand this study to regional and national levels.