Identification of Potential Delinquents At 2-3 Years of Age

E. Glueck,S. Glueck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002076406601200101

1966-01-01

International Journal of Social Psychiatry

Abstract:N the July 1963 issue of Crime and Delinquency, Maude M. Craig and Selma J. IGlick of the Research Department of the New York City Youth Board presented a paper entitled &dquo;Ten Years’ Experience with the Glueck Social Prediction Table&dquo;. It describes an experiment undertaken by the Youth Board in 1952 to ascertain the extent to which predictions based on the Glueck Prediction Table (ref. 1, p. 261) (originally encompassing five interpersonal family factors-affection of father for boy, affection of mother for boy, discipline of boy by father, supervision of boy by mother and family cohesiveness), if applied at school entrance (five-and-a-half to six years), would correctly discriminate between true delinquents and true nondelinquents. The subjects were 301 boys, followed up to age 17 (which marks the end of juvenile court jurisdiction in New York State). Although the 1963 report did not present the evidence on the entire group of boys studied-since 59 of them had not then yet reached the age of 17-the results were already significant. Since then, however, the Youth Board has made a fuller presentation of the findings in A Manual of Procedures for Application of the Glueck Prediction Table (ref. 2). This report, already well publicised, indicates that of 33 boys identified at school entrance as having a high potential for delinquency, 25 (or 84.8 per cent) actually did become persistent offenders before age 17; and of 243 identified on school entrance as unlikely to become true delinquents, 97.1 per cent remained non-offenders, although residing in areas with high delinquency rates. Of 25 boys who were placed in an ambiguous group having about an even chance of delinquency or non-delinquency-and therefore not clearly identifiable-nine actually became delinquent and 16 did not. The Youth Board’s results are well supported by a number of retrospective applications of the table to many small samples of delinquents (refs. 3, 4, 5), and by a prospective study made by the Commissioners’ Youth Council of Washington, D.C., in a research called &dquo;The Maximum Benefits Project&dquo;. In the Washington study the predictive table was applied to 179 boys and girls in two schools in