If you are only using CPS ASEC data (i.e. only one sample year), then there is no need to restrict on MONTH; a combination of YEAR, SERIAL, and FAMUNIT for both CPS-ASEC and Decennial Census data will be adequate.
I am not fully understanding how you are retaining families in 1950 where the first person in the family was also the sample line person. Using a combination of PERNUM = 1 and RELATE = 1 will not accomplish this without using SLREC. While RELATE = 1 identifies the household head, anyone in the household (with any value of PERNUM) could have been the sample line person. For additional context, census enumerators in 1950 interviewed household members and entered each person’s information on a line in the enumeration form. Each census page contains information on thirty individuals. Every fifth line on the census page was designated as a sample line, and persons falling on this sample line were asked additional questions (this is where the INC questions appear). Restricting the 1950 sample to households with a sample line household head will require you to drop families where the household head (RELATE = 1, or equivalently in the 1950 census PERNUM = 1) is not the sample-line person (SLREC = 1).
This approach retains all families where the head of the household is the sample line person. These families can be divided into two groups:
- Primary families (i.e., a group of individuals residing in the same household who are all related to the household head) where the household head is a sample line person.
- Secondary families (i.e., one or more groups of related individuals residing in the same household who are not related to the household head) where the household head is a sample line person.
Some of these secondary families may contain sample line respondents, but by definition, none of them will include the household head. To address these secondary families, you might try to determine yourself who you would call the family head for each of the secondary families by using contextual variables and retaining only families where the family head is the sample line person. Otherwise, you may choose to drop secondary families in multi-family units as well.
I stated in my previous response that HHWT was primarily constructed for household-level analysis, however HHWT does permit users to generate estimates for families in many of the Decennial Census samples that you reference. In particular, the 1960 & 1970 IPUMS samples are all “flat” samples, meaning that the probability of being included in the IPUMS sample is identical for all households (and by extension, families as well). Since income questions were asked of all respondents 14+ in these years, no additional adjustment to HHWT is necessary in order to use it as a weight for analyses of families. The same can be said of both the 1940 1% and full count files. Even though the 1% file is not a flat sample, HHWT is constructed using a method that allows for representative estimates for families.
However, in the 1950 samples, since income is only asked of sample line persons, additional adjustments must be made. When restricting your analysis to households/families where the household/family head is a sample line person, your subsample is actually a flat sample since each household/family has an equal probability of having its head be a sample line person. Moreover, this probability is equal to the probability of any individual respondent being a sample line person. In the 1% file (due to complicated sampling) this probability is 1-in-330. In the full count file, this probability is 1-in-5. If using the 1950 1% sample, you should therefore create a weight that is equal to 330 for all observations and run your analysis using this weight, restricting your sample to one observation per family/household as mentioned previously. With the full count file, your weight should equal 5. You may also want to compare your estimates between the two samples since there are known issues with reported income in the 1950 preliminary release.
Taking a quick look at your variable list, I’m seeing that you mention FWAGE2 and FBUSINC in 1950. While these variables may be helpful to check your aggregation of family income, you want to make sure not to double count income. For example, if both the household head and another member of the household/family were sample line persons in 1950 and reported wage earnings, you will have INCWAGE data for both respondents. If you then add FWAGE2 on top, you will be double counting the second respondent’s earnings. You mentioned not wanting to use FTOTINC since you wish to exclude transfers from income, but it may still make sense to use this variable for 1950 only (while constructing your own measure for other years) as it accounts for the sample line structure within families.
I hope my explanations are clear. Please let me know if you have any further questions.