When an indicted small-time thief learns of her boy scout kid brother’s ambition to make their crime-ridden town litter-free, she must spend her remaining days of freedom helping him while keeping him safe.

My usual m.o. for evaluating a logline is to approach it as if I were a movie producer. That is, I know nothing about the "back story" of the logline, how it came to be written, the versions and revisions it went through. Nor can I read the writer's mind. All I can read are the words in the logline.

The logline must stand on its own.

Now then. Were I a movie producer, I would be initially interested in the logline because littering is a prime pet peeve. So on one level (whether the writer intends it I know not) I can see in the story a parable for our troubled and trashed times. That is, to clean up the environment, save the world from the consequences of global warming, think global--and start local.

But to my sensibility, the critical story elements don't cohere.

For one thing, the character flaw is fungible to the action and purpose of the plot. And to the implicit character arc. By that, I mean you could swap out "small-time thief" for her being a drug dealer, a prostitute, a forger, a murderer -- and there would no apparent difference to her purpose in the plot. Nor would it alter her overall character arc. (What is her character arc, anyway?)

But the nature and trajectory of the character arc is contingent on the nature of the character flaw. A change in the flaw entails a change in the character arc.

The character flaw should relate to the plot as a whole in that it constitutes a serious impediment to achieving the objective goal. So if she doesn't overcome the flaw, she can't achieve her goal.

And it is usually the case that there is a thematic subtext to which the character flaw and the character goal are both connected. I am unable to intuit one.

Further, while she may want to help her nephew, there is no evidence suggesting why she "must help him" arising from either her character or her predicament.

Finally, I fail to see how her "career choice" qualifies her to protect her nephew. If she were a murderer or a robber, or an enforcer -- yes. But a mere petty thief? I don't think so. Petty thieves are snatch and run criminals, not snatch and fight.

My 2.5 cents worth.

Well, I initially had her as a drug dealer, going for the irony I think you're suggesting, and I got feedback that it sounded "dichotomous" ... I agreed and realized the drug dealer aspect of it was a little distracting and unnecessary... so, I made her a thief. I figured she'd have street smarts as a thief, but if I kept it as "small time", it'd up the danger a bit. Someone well-established and older likely would be better off. Still, maybe it doesn't add enough to warrant the extra words.

Your second point is something I was thinking about. Technically-speaking, the reason she has to help is because, if he doesn't get it done, he's going to have to continue on without her. What about this?

When a convicted thief learns of her boy scout kid brother’s ambition to clean up their crime-ridden town's infamous litter, she must spend her remaining days of freedom helping him get it done while she can ensure his safety.

Is there a reason the thief must be "small time." The reason I ask is because I see more conflict if the thief is a major one, and a greater irony with a bigger thief being involved in a Quixotic project....
I also agree with Mike about the compelling "need" to help the kid brother.... what happens if the thief doesn't help and just protects the brother? If she both needs to HELP and PROTECT I think it needs to be indicated WHY she needs to HELP.