In 2021, the total cost of the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was around ****** billion U.S. dollars. This is a significant increase from the previous year, when the total cost of SNAP amounted to **** billion U.S. dollars.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the new name for the federal Food Stamp Program. This data set contains participation and cost data for SNAP. The data is furthered divided by annual, state, and monthly levels categorized by persons participating, households participating, benefits provided, average monthly benefits per person and average monthly benefits per household.

Graph and download economic data for Government social benefits: to persons: Federal: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (TRP6001A027NBEA) from 1961 to 2023 about assistance, social assistance, nutrition, food stamps, benefits, federal, food, government, GDP, and USA.

This report–part of an annual series–presents estimates of the percentage of eligible persons, by state, who participated in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during an average month in fiscal year (FY) 2019 and in the two previous fiscal years. SNAP eligibility criteria include maximum income and resource thresholds, as well as certain nonfinancial criteria, such as age and disability status.

The SNAP participation rate shows how many households in Champaign County receive SNAP benefits, as a percentage of the total number of households in the county. The SNAP participation rate can serve as an indicator of poverty and need in the area, as income-based thresholds establish SNAP eligibility. However, not every household in poverty receives SNAP benefits, as can be determined by comparing the poverty rate between 2005 and 2023 and the percentage of households receiving SNAP benefits between 2005 and 2023.

The number of households and the percentage of households receiving SNAP benefits was higher in 2023 than in 2005, but we cannot establish a trend based on year-to-year changes, as in many years these changes are not statistically significant.

SNAP participation data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Receipt of Food Stamps/SNAP in the Past 12 Months by Presence of Children Under 18 Years for Households.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (26 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (5 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2201; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

This report – part of an annual series – presents estimates of the percentage of eligible persons, by State, who participated in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during an average month in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and in the two previous fiscal years. This report also presents estimates of State participation rates for eligible “working poor” individuals (persons in households with earnings) over the same period.

This report, part of an annual series, presents estimates, by state, of the percentage of eligible persons and working poor individuals who participated in SNAP during an average month in fiscal year (FY 2017) and the two previous fiscal years.

BackgroundThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides approximately US$70 billion annually to support food purchases by low-income households, supporting approximately 1 in 7 Americans. In the 2018 Farm Bill, potential SNAP revisions to improve diets and health could include financial incentives, disincentives, or restrictions for certain foods. However, the overall and comparative impacts on health outcomes and costs are not established. We aimed to estimate the health impact, program and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness of food incentives, disincentives, or restrictions in SNAP.Methods and findingsWe used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT), populated with national data on adult SNAP participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009–2014, policy effects from SNAP pilots and food pricing meta-analyses, diet–disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy, food, and healthcare costs from published literature to estimate the overall and comparative impacts of 3 dietary policy interventions: (1) a 30% incentive for fruits and vegetables (F&V), (2) a 30% F&V incentive with a restriction of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and (3) a broader incentive/disincentive program for multiple foods that also preserves choice (SNAP-plus), combining 30% incentives for F&V, nuts, whole grains, fish, and plant-based oils and 30% disincentives for SSBs, junk food, and processed meats. Among approximately 14.5 million adults on SNAP at baseline with mean age 52 years, our simulation estimates that the F&V incentive over 5 years would prevent 38,782 cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, gain 18,928 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and save $1.21 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to 93,933 CVD events prevented, 45,864 QALYs gained, and $4.33 billion saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were 116,875 CVD events prevented, 56,056 QALYs gained, and $5.28 billion saved. Over a lifetime, the F&V incentive would prevent approximately 303,900 CVD events, gain 649,000 QALYs, and save $6.77 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to approximately 797,900 CVD events prevented, 2.11 million QALYs gained, and $39.16 billion in healthcare costs saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were approximately 940,000 CVD events prevented, 2.47 million QALYs gained, and $41.93 billion saved. From a societal perspective (including programmatic costs but excluding food subsidy costs as an intra-societal transfer), all 3 scenarios were cost-saving. From a government affordability perspective (i.e., incorporating food subsidy costs, including for children and young adults for whom no health gains were modeled), the F&V incentive was of low cost-effectiveness at 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $548,053/QALY) but achieved cost-effectiveness ($66,525/QALY) over a lifetime. Adding SSB restriction, the intervention was cost-effective at 10 years ($68,857/QALY) and very cost-effective at 20 years ($26,435/QALY) and over a lifetime ($5,216/QALY). The combined incentive/disincentive program produced the largest health gains and reduced both healthcare and food costs, with net cost-savings of $10.16 billion at 5 years and $63.33 billion over a lifetime. Results were consistent in probabilistic sensitivity analyses: for example, from a societal perspective, 1,000 of 1,000 iterations (100%) were cost-saving for all 3 interventions. Due to the nature of simulation studies, the findings cannot prove the health and cost impacts of national SNAP interventions.ConclusionsLeveraging healthier eating through SNAP could generate substantial health benefits and be cost-effective or cost-saving. A combined food incentive/disincentive program appears most effective and may be most attractive to policy-makers.

This data collection contains information from the Survey of Income and Education (SIE) conducted during the months of April through July of 1976 by the Census Bureau for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The original SIE file, SURVEY OF INCOME AND EDUCATION, 1976 (ICPSR 7634), was modified by the United States Commission of Civil Rights and consists of all the minority records and 1/8 of the majority from the original files. The records were made rectangular by combining three record types (household-level, family-level, and person-level) with lengths of 450 characters into a single record with a length of 846. Three variables have also been added to each record: group identification code, typical educational requirement for current occupation, and occupational prestige code. The survey served as a supplement to the yearly Current Population Survey and was conducted to obtain reliable state-by-state data on the numbers of children in local areas with family incomes below the federal poverty level. The information was used to facilitate Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The SIE includes questions used in the Current Population Survey and also contains additional exclusive questions covering school enrollment, disability, health insurance, bilingualism, food stamp recipiency, assets, and housing costs. The SIE modified file was provided by the National Chicano Research Network, which was located at the Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Snap operating expenses for the twelve months ending March 31, 2025 were $6.178B, a 0.01% decline year-over-year. Snap annual operating expenses for 2024 were $6.149B, a 2.4% increase from 2023. Snap annual operating expenses for 2023 were $6.004B, a 0.12% increase from 2022. Snap annual operating expenses for 2022 were $5.997B, a 24.45% increase from 2021.

This data collection, focusing on the welfare and public support system, contains information from the SURVEY OF INCOME AND EDUCATION, 1976 (ICPSR 7634), conducted during the months of April through July of 1976 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The survey served as a supplement to the yearly Current Population Survey and was conducted to obtain reliable state-by-state data on the numbers of children in local areas with family incomes below the federal poverty level. The information was used to facilitate Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The survey includes questions used in the Current Population Survey and also contains additional exclusive questions covering school enrollment, disability, health insurance, bilingualism, food stamp recipiency, assets, and housing costs. The National Chicano Research Network created this extract by including only those cases for people who received either of the following types of support: food stamps in 1975 or 1976, public housing, government rent subsidy, railroad retirement, United States government SSI, aid to families with dependent children, other public assistance, Medicaid, veteran's assistance, neighborhood health center, free or low-cost clinic, other public source, or any public assistance or welfare the previous month. The 110 variables used from SURVEY OF INCOME AND EDUCATION, 1976: RECTANGULAR FILE (ICPSR 7919) were mostly demographic, income-related, and employment-related variables. The data were provided by the National Chicano Research Network, which was located at the Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

The Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS) is the source of national and State-level statistics on food insecurity used in USDA's annual reports on household food security. The CPS is a monthly labor force survey of about 50,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Once each year, after answering the labor force questions, the same households are asked a series of questions (the Food Security Supplement) about food security, food expenditures, and use of food and nutrition assistance programs. Food security data have been collected by the CPS-FSS each year since 1995. Four data sets that complement those available from the Census Bureau are available for download on the ERS website. These are available as ASCII uncompressed or zipped files. The purpose and appropriate use of these additional data files are described below: 1) CPS 1995 Revised Food Security Status data--This file provides household food security scores and food security status categories that are consistent with procedures and variable naming conventions introduced in 1996. This includes the "common screen" variables to facilitate comparisons of prevalence rates across years. This file must be matched to the 1995 CPS Food Security Supplement public-use data file. 2) CPS 1998 Children's and 30-day Food Security data--Subsequent to the release of the April 1999 CPS-FSS public-use data file, USDA developed two additional food security scales to describe aspects of food security conditions in interviewed households not captured by the 12-month household food security scale. This file provides three food security variables (categorical, raw score, and scale score) for each of these scales along with household identification variables to allow the user to match this supplementary data file to the CPS-FSS April 1998 data file. 3) CPS 1999 Children's and 30-day Food Security data--Subsequent to the release of the April 1999 CPS-FSS public-use data file, USDA developed two additional food security scales to describe aspects of food security conditions in interviewed households not captured by the 12-month household food security scale. This file provides three food security variables (categorical, raw score, and scale score) for each of these scales along with household identification variables to allow the user to match this supplementary data file to the CPS-FSS April 1999 data file. 4) CPS 2000 30-day Food Security data--Subsequent to the release of the September 2000 CPS-FSS public-use data file, USDA developed a revised 30-day CPS Food Security Scale. This file provides three food security variables (categorical, raw score, and scale score) for the 30-day scale along with household identification variables to allow the user to match this supplementary data file to the CPS-FSS September 2000 data file. Food security is measured at the household level in three categories: food secure, low food security and very low food security. Each category is measured by a total count and as a percent of the total population. Categories and measurements are broken down further based on the following demographic characteristics: household composition, race/ethnicity, metro/nonmetro area of residence, and geographic region. The food security scale includes questions about households and their ability to purchase enough food and balanced meals, questions about adult meals and their size, frequency skipped, weight lost, days gone without eating, questions about children meals, including diversity, balanced meals, size of meals, skipped meals and hunger. Questions are also asked about the use of public assistance and supplemental food assistance. The food security scale is 18 items that measure insecurity. A score of 0-2 means a house is food secure, from 3-7 indicates low food security, and 8-18 means very low food security. The scale and the data also report the frequency with which each item is experienced. Data are available as .dat files which may be processed in statistical software or through the United State Census Bureau's DataFerret http://dataferrett.census.gov/. Data from 2010 onwards is available below and online. Data from 1995-2009 must be accessed through DataFerrett. DataFerrett is a data analysis and extraction tool to customize federal, state, and local data to suit your requirements. Through DataFerrett, the user can develop an unlimited array of customized spreadsheets that are as versatile and complex as your usage demands then turn those spreadsheets into graphs and maps without any additional software. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: December 2014 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec14pub.zipResource Title: December 2013 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec13pub.zipResource Title: December 2012 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec12pub.zipResource Title: December 2011 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec11pub.zipResource Title: December 2010 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec10pub.zip

In 2024, the camera and social media company Snap Inc reported advertising costs of **** million U.S. dollars, up from **** million U.S. dollars in 2023.

https://map.feedingamerica.org/Every community in the country is home to people who struggle with hunger. Since federal nutrition programs don’t reach everyone in need, food banks help fill the gap. Learn more about local food insecurity by exploring data from Feeding America’s annual Map the Meal Gap study. When we better understand hunger, we can help end hunger.What is food insecurity and what does it look like in America?Food insecurity refers to USDA’s measure of lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members and limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods. Food-insecure households are not necessarily food insecure all the time. Food insecurity may reflect a household’s need to make trade-offs between important basic needs, such as housing or medical bills, and purchasing nutritionally adequate foods.Notes from Feeding America regarding dIfferences from previous studies:1. Beginning in 2020, we enhanced our food insecurity model through the inclusion of a disability rate variable and refining our poverty measure to reflect non-undergraduate student poverty. The details surrounding this changed are discussed in our technical brief. Because of this methodology changes, the estimates from Map the Meal Gap 2020 are not comparable to estimates from previous years.2. In response to COVID-19, we expanded on Map the Meal Gap to include a companion study and interactive map that discuss our projections in food insecurity as a result of the pandemic. They may also be of interest to check out.

Gundersen, C., A. Dewey, E. Engelhard, M. Strayer & L. Lapinski. Map the Meal Gap 2020: A Report on County and Congressional District Food Insecurity and County Food Cost in the United States in 2018. Feeding America, 2020.

This data collection is a modified version of the original SURVEY OF INCOME AND EDUCATION, 1976 (ICPSR 7634). While the original files were hierarchically structured, this file is rectangular in structure. All of the household and person records were included in the rectangular file, but none of the family records. The household variables were placed at the beginning of each corresponding person record. The survey was conducted during the months of April through July of 1976 by the Census Bureau for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It served as a supplement to the yearly Current Population Survey and was conducted to obtain reliable state-by-state data on the numbers of children in local areas with family incomes below the federal poverty level. The information was used by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to facilitate Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The survey includes questions used in the Current Population Survey and also contains additional exclusive questions covering school enrollment, disability, health insurance, bilingualism, food stamp recipiency, assets, and housing costs. This collection was provided by the National Chicano Research Network, which was located at the Survey Research Center of the Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan.

Snap on Closures Market Outlook

The global snap on closures market size is projected to grow from USD 12.5 billion in 2023 to USD 18.3 billion by 2032, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.5%. This growth is largely driven by increasing demand across various end-use industries such as food & beverages, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics & personal care, coupled with advancements in packaging technologies.

One of the primary growth factors for the snap on closures market is the rising consumer preference for convenience and ease of use in packaging. Snap on closures offer an efficient and user-friendly solution for opening and closing containers, which is particularly appreciated in fast-paced urban lifestyles. Additionally, the growing trend of sustainable and eco-friendly packaging is pushing manufacturers to innovate and produce closures that minimize environmental impact while maintaining functionality and aesthetics.

Furthermore, the food & beverages industry is a major driver for the market. With the increasing global population and rising disposable incomes, the demand for packaged food and beverages is skyrocketing. Snap on closures are extensively used in this sector due to their ability to preserve product freshness and extend shelf-life. The pharmaceutical industry also significantly contributes to market growth as snap on closures ensure the safety and integrity of medicinal products, preventing contamination and unauthorized access.

Another significant factor contributing to the growth of the snap on closures market is the rise in e-commerce and online retailing. As more consumers shift towards online shopping, the demand for secure and tamper-evident packaging solutions has surged. Snap on closures provide an effective means to meet these requirements, thus bolstering their adoption across various sectors. Additionally, technological advancements in packaging machinery and materials are fostering innovation, enabling the development of more efficient and specialized snap on closures.

Regionally, North America and Europe have traditionally been strong markets for snap on closures, driven by high consumer expectations for quality and convenience in packaging. However, the Asia Pacific region is expected to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period. Rapid urbanization, increasing disposable incomes, and expanding middle-class populations in countries like China and India are key factors driving the market in this region. Additionally, increasing industrialization and growing focus on sustainable packaging solutions are further propelling market growth in Asia Pacific.

Material Type Analysis

The snap on closures market is segmented by material type into plastic, metal, and others. Plastic snap on closures dominate the market due to their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and wide range of applications. The lightweight nature of plastic closures makes them ideal for various consumer goods, reducing shipping costs and enhancing convenience. Additionally, advancements in plastic materials such as bio-based plastics and recyclable polymers are driving their adoption in line with sustainability trends.

Metal snap on closures, although less prevalent than plastic, play a crucial role in industries requiring robust and durable sealing solutions. Metal closures are particularly favored in the beverage industry for products like carbonated drinks and alcoholic beverages, where maintaining product integrity and carbonation is essential. The recyclability of metal closures also contributes to their appeal, aligning with increasing environmental awareness and regulatory pressures for sustainable packaging.

Other materials used for snap on closures include glass, rubber, and composites, which cater to niche applications. Glass closures, for example, are used in high-end cosmetic and personal care products to impart a premium look and feel. Rubber closures are often employed in industrial and chemical applications where flexibility and resistance to harsh environments are crucial. Composite materials, combining the strengths of different materials, are gaining traction for specialized applications that demand specific performance characteristics.

Report Scope

Spring Snap Market Outlook

The global market size for spring snaps was valued at approximately USD 1.5 billion in 2023 and is expected to reach USD 2.3 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.8% during the forecast period. This growth is fueled by increasing demand in various industries such as apparel, automotive, and industrial applications, which rely on spring snaps for efficient and secure fastening solutions.

The primary growth driver for the spring snap market is the expanding apparel and fashion industry. The use of spring snaps in clothing for convenience and durability has made them a staple component in garment manufacturing. As fashion trends evolve and consumer preferences shift towards more functional clothing, the demand for reliable and aesthetically pleasing fastening solutions continues to rise. Additionally, the rise in disposable income and the growing middle-class population in emerging economies have further contributed to the increased consumption of clothing, thereby boosting the demand for spring snaps.

Another significant growth factor is the burgeoning automotive sector. Spring snaps are widely used in vehicles for various applications, including seat belts, interior trims, and other components that require secure fastening. The increase in vehicle production, coupled with technological advancements in automotive design, has necessitated the adoption of high-quality fastening solutions like spring snaps. Moreover, the trend towards lightweight and durable materials in automotive manufacturing further drives the demand for specialized spring snaps that can meet stringent safety and performance standards.

The industrial sector also plays a crucial role in the growth of the spring snap market. Industries such as manufacturing, construction, and logistics rely on spring snaps for various fastening and clamping applications. The need for robust and reliable fastening solutions in these sectors is paramount, and spring snaps offer a cost-effective and efficient solution. The ongoing industrialization in developing countries and the continuous innovation in industrial machinery and equipment are expected to sustain the demand for spring snaps over the forecast period.

From a regional perspective, Asia Pacific is expected to dominate the spring snap market during the forecast period. This dominance is attributed to the presence of a large number of manufacturing facilities, coupled with the growing automotive and textile industries in the region. Countries like China, India, and Japan are major contributors to the market growth due to their robust industrial base and increasing investment in infrastructure development. Additionally, the favorable government policies and initiatives to boost domestic manufacturing are likely to further propel the market growth in this region.

Product Type Analysis

The spring snap market is segmented into metal spring snaps, plastic spring snaps, and others. Metal spring snaps hold the largest market share and are widely preferred due to their durability, strength, and reliability. These attributes make them suitable for heavy-duty applications in the automotive, industrial, and apparel sectors. The use of advanced materials such as stainless steel and brass in manufacturing metal spring snaps has enhanced their performance, leading to increased adoption across various industries.

Plastic spring snaps, on the other hand, are gaining popularity due to their lightweight nature, cost-effectiveness, and resistance to corrosion. These snaps are predominantly used in applications where weight reduction is crucial, such as in apparel and bags. The development of high-performance plastics that can withstand mechanical stress and environmental factors has broadened the application scope of plastic spring snaps. Innovations in plastic materials are expected to drive the market growth for plastic spring snaps over the forecast period.

The "others" category includes spring snaps made from composite materials and specialized alloys. These snaps cater to niche applications that require unique properties such as high resistance to extreme temperatures, chemicals, or mechanical wear. The demand for specialized spring snaps is growing in industries with stringent performance requirements, including aerospace, medical devices, and high-tech electronics. The continuous research and development in material science are likely to introduce new products in this segment, further expanding its market share.

Overall,

This data collection contains information from the SURVEY OF INCOME AND EDUCATION, 1976 (ICPSR 7634), conducted during the months of April through July of 1976 by the Bureau of the Census for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The survey served as a supplement to the yearly Current Population Survey and was conducted to obtain reliable state-by-state data on the numbers of children in local areas with family incomes below the federal poverty level. The information was used to facilitate Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The survey includes questions used in the Current Population Survey and also contains additional exclusive questions covering school enrollment, disability, health insurance, bilingualism, food stamp recipiency, assets, and housing costs. This extract was made from the SURVEY OF INCOME AND EDUCATION, 1976: RECTANGULAR FILE (ICPSR 7919) and includes only those persons who specified their ethnicity as either Mexican American, Chicano, Mexican, Mexicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish. Those who said they were born in Puerto Rico, Cuba, or Mexico were also included. The collection was provided to ICPSR by the National Chicano Research Network which was located at the Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

The global snap fastener market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand across diverse sectors. While precise market size figures aren't provided, considering the extensive applications in automotive, aerospace, and consumer goods, coupled with a projected Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), a reasonable estimation places the 2025 market value at approximately $5 billion. This growth is fueled by several key trends. The automotive industry's ongoing expansion, particularly in electric vehicles and lightweighting initiatives, necessitates high-performance and durable fasteners like snap fasteners. The rising popularity of comfortable, easily-adjustable clothing in the consumer goods sector further boosts demand for plastic snap fasteners. Technological advancements in materials science are leading to the development of stronger, lighter, and more corrosion-resistant snap fasteners, catering to demanding applications like aerospace components. However, fluctuating raw material prices, particularly for metals, pose a significant restraint, impacting production costs and potentially limiting market expansion in the short term. The market is segmented by type (metal and plastic) and application (aerospace, automotive, consumer goods, and others), with the automotive and consumer goods segments currently dominating market share. Leading players like YKK Group, Scovill Fasteners, and Koh-i-noor are leveraging their established presence and technological expertise to maintain market leadership, while regional disparities exist, with North America and Asia Pacific expected to exhibit strong growth potential due to increasing industrialization and consumer spending. The forecast period of 2025-2033 promises continued growth for the snap fastener market, with projected expansion propelled by technological innovations leading to improved product quality and performance. The shift towards sustainable manufacturing practices and the increasing demand for recyclable materials will likely influence product development strategies. Furthermore, the penetration of snap fasteners in emerging applications, such as medical devices and electronics, is anticipated to create new revenue streams. Geographic expansion into developing economies will also significantly contribute to overall market growth, however, challenges related to supply chain disruptions and geopolitical instability may present headwinds. Competitive landscape analysis reveals that established companies are focusing on strategic partnerships, mergers and acquisitions to expand their market share and enhance their product portfolios. This makes the snap fastener market a dynamic and ever-evolving space with substantial opportunities for growth.

The global snap fastener market is a dynamic sector experiencing steady growth, driven by increasing demand across diverse industries. While precise market size figures are unavailable, we can infer substantial market value based on the presence of major players like Koh-i-noor, Scovill Fasteners, and YKK Group, indicating a significant market capitalization. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) – let's assume a conservative 5% based on industry trends for similar fastening solutions – suggests consistent expansion throughout the forecast period (2025-2033). Key drivers include the rising adoption of snap fasteners in apparel, footwear, automotive interiors, and various industrial applications where their ease of use and secure fastening capabilities are highly valued. Emerging trends include the development of more sustainable and eco-friendly materials, along with innovative designs offering enhanced durability and aesthetics. Potential restraints could include fluctuating raw material prices and the emergence of alternative fastening technologies. However, the versatility and cost-effectiveness of snap fasteners are expected to sustain their market relevance. Segment analysis (specific data unavailable) would likely reveal variations in growth rates across different applications. For example, the apparel segment may show a higher CAGR driven by fashion trends and the need for quick, secure closures. Similarly, the automotive industry could present a strong segment, driven by consistent production and the requirement for reliable interior fastening solutions. Competitive analysis reveals a mix of established players and smaller specialized manufacturers. Companies are focusing on product innovation, expanding their product portfolios, and leveraging strategic partnerships to maintain their market position. Geographical analysis (specific data unavailable) will likely reflect higher demand in developed economies, such as North America and Europe, followed by strong growth in emerging markets of Asia-Pacific and Latin America, driven by increasing manufacturing and consumer spending. The study period of 2019-2033 provides a comprehensive overview of market evolution and future potential.