SUBJECTS WERE SELECTED FROM A GROUP OF CHILDREN CHARGED WITH TRUANCY IN THE CITY OF LEEDS, ENGLAND. THE ALLOCATION OF CHILDREN TO ADJOURNMENT OR SUPERVISION WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY USING A TABLE OF RANDOM NUMBERS. FOURTEEN VARIABLES WERE EXAMINED: SEX, AGE, SIZE OF CLASS, PREVIOUS ABSENCE, INTACT HOME, FREE SCHOOL MEALS, IMMIGRANT POPULATION, OWNED HOMES, POLICE RECORD, FAMILY SIZE, BIRTH ORDER, DISPOSAL (WHETHER DEALT WITH BY ADJOURNMENT OR SUPERVISION), OUTCOME, AND SUBSEQUENT POLICE RECORD. ADJOURNED AND SUPERVISED CHILDREN DID NOT DIFFER IN TERMS OF AGE AND SEX, ALTHOUGH THE ADJOURNED GROUP CONTAINED SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER CHILDREN FROM INTACT HOMES THAN DID THE SUPERVISED GROUP PARTICULARLY FOR CHILDREN WHO LIVED IN THOSE PARTS OF THE CITY CONTAINING A HIGH POPULATION OF IMMIGRANTS. NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE OBSERVED WHEN THE 36 ADJOURNED AND 47 SUPERVISED CHILDREN, WHO HAD SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRES COMPLETED ON THEM, WERE COMPARED FOR THE SAME VARIABLES. ADJOURNED CHILDREN APPEARED IN COURT SEVEN TIMES ON THE AVERAGE DURING THE 6-MONTH STUDY PERIOD. THIRTEEN SUPERVISED CHILDREN, AS A RESULT OF REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS, WERE BROUGHT BACK TO COURT BY SOCIAL WORKERS BECAUSE OF POOR PROGRESS DURING THE FIRST 6 MONTHS AFTER THEIR FIRST APPEARANCE IN COURT FOR TRUANCY. NEARLY ALL THE GIRLS IN THE SUPERVISED GROUP WERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A PROBATION OFFICER; 15 OF THE 30 BOYS PLACED ON SUPERVISION WERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A PROBATION OFFICER AND 15 WERE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF A SOCIAL WORKER. ON THE WHOLE, TRUANTS WERE AWAY FROM SCHOOL FOR AN AVERAGE OF 83 HALF DAYS OUT OF POSSIBLE 190 HALF DAYS. BEFORE THEIR FIRST APPEARANCE IN COURT FOR TRUANCY, ADJOURNED AND SUPERVISED CHILDREN DID NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FOR AVERAGE NUMBER OF OFFENSE. AFTER APPEARING IN COURT, ADJOURNED CHILDREN HAD A MEAN NUMBER OF 0.2 OFFENSES AND SUPERVISED CHILDREN HAD A MEAN NUMBER OF 0.9 OFFENSE. THE FINDING THAT ADJOURNMENT WAS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN SUPERVISION IN GETTING TRUANTS BACK TO SCHOOL CONFIRMED THE RESULTS OF PREVIOUS STUDY. COURT PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY JUVENILE COURT MAGISTRATES ARE DESCRIBED IN AN APPENDIX. SUPPORTING DATA AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)