Youth clubs can be bad for teenagers.

Me, too. Can you post the article?

In some cases, kids who grew up in homes with two loving parents, sufficient money, lots of attention still go out and commit crimes.

In some cases, kids who grew up without loving parents, an abusive father, no money and only negative attention go on to be productive members of society.

I think this study is silly. Where was this done? By who? How big was the sample?

Well, the Guardian is a well respected newspaper, so I'd doubt that they'd making statements like this lightly. All the same, it is surprising & it'd be good to read the article for the details.

Found this via Google:

Youth clubs can be bad for you, says report

Lucy Ward, social affairs correspondent
Thursday January 20, 2005
The Guardian

Hanging out aimlessly at youth clubs is so bad for teenagers they would be better off in front of the television at home, according to unpublished government research.

Margaret Hodge, the minister for children and young people, yesterday revealed that a study concludes that, far from supporting teenagers, clubs offering too little to youngsters could even help turn them to crime, drag down their performance at school and give them a lasting smoking habit.

"Just hanging out not only does nothing for young people but the research tells us it can have negative outcomes," Ms Hodge told a conference held by the Institute of Public Policy Research. "Looked at baldly, this research tells us that these young people would have been better off at home watching telly than spending their time with others in this way."

The study, for the Department for Education and Skills by Leon Feinstein, a professor at the University of London's Institute of Education, is to be published within weeks alongside the government's youth green paper.

Professor Feinstein tracked a group born in 1970 to examine the impact of youth activities over time. His conclusion - that giving young people a place to hang out without organised activities or effective supervision is damaging - will reinforce government determination to offer all 13- to 19-year-olds not only "places to go" but "things to do".

Working documents for the green paper, seen by the Guardian, show ministers want to give all young people "access to, and choice between, a wide range of constructive activities, including sport, culture, [adventure training] experiences, travel away from home". They are proposing a smartcard to help pay for such activities, entitling youngsters to discounts.

Edit [Moderator]: Links removed

The documents also show that provision for young people is patchy and complex, involving "too many services and programmes" yet reaching too few teenagers and failing to offer what they want. It is also costly, totalling more than £4.6bn in 2004-05, though that figure includes social services for teenagers.

The green paper, due just weeks before the expected general election, is also meant to stress the positive approach by the government to young people, amid concerns that ministers' focus on antisocial behaviour and youth crime gives a skewed picture.

Ms Hodge yesterday sought to highlight the "talents, inventiveness and drive of our young people", saying that "most young people are not antisocial yobs, criminals, binge drinkers or drug addicts, but images portraying them as such can feed into a climate of distrust and negativity which is both unfair and untrue".

Nevertheless, the young people (estimated at 25%-30% of the total by Ms Hodge) who resist involvement in organised activities and are seen as a problem by their local communities will have to be targeted under green paper proposals.

Anne Longfield, the chief executive of the campaign group 4Children, said much youth provision had developed from the "pool table in a hall" common in the 1980s when those studied in the Feinstein research were teenagers, but there was still scope for great improvement.

Thanks for posting that, DrewDad.