# Why are some observations classified as SPM poor even though SPM resources are greater than SPM poverty threshold?

**URL:** https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-are-some-observations-classified-as-spm-poor-even-though-spm-resources-are-greater-than-spm-poverty-threshold/1669
**Category:** CPS
**Created:** [March 28, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-are-some-observations-classified-as-spm-poor-even-though-spm-resources-are-greater-than-spm-poverty-threshold/1669 "2017-03-28T16:50:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Monique\_Morrissey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19adc/32.png) [@Monique\_Morrissey](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Monique_Morrissey)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-are-some-observations-classified-as-spm-poor-even-though-spm-resources-are-greater-than-spm-poverty-threshold/1669/1 "2017-03-28T16:50:00Z")

</div>

In 2016 ASEC (but not 2012-2015 surveys) some observations with SPMPOV=1 have SPMTOTRES\>SPMTHRESH. This doesn’t seem to be a rounding issue because in one case total resources are almost 5% above the threshold. What am I doing wrong?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![JeffBloem](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.ipums.org/jeffbloem/32/40_2.png) [@JeffBloem](https://forum.ipums.org/u/JeffBloem)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-are-some-observations-classified-as-spm-poor-even-though-spm-resources-are-greater-than-spm-poverty-threshold/1669/2 "2017-03-31T18:20:00Z")

</div>

You are not doing anything wrong. Actually the Census Bureau has recently released a new version of the SPM variables for 2016, which fixes the issues you highlight. These revisions will be reflected in the next IPUMS CPS data release.