The pro of the traditional family is that children have strong role models from which to draw life experience, right? Firstly the traditional conservative single family house is not the only way that kids can draw from strong role models. Look, for example, at the cohousing movement that originated in practically socialist Denmark. So I don't necessarily think that is the end all be all answer. .
It may not be the ONLY way, but it's the best proven model. And it so happens I am from Scandinavia, my dad grew up in Denmark, I was born in Sweden. The traditional family is alive and well in Scandinavia, perhaps more so than in the US. That is certainly the case for the lower classes, anyhow.
The difference is that few Scandinavians are religious, so they choose not to marry. However nuclear families, with a mother, father, grandparents, etc are the norm... even in lower class areas. They just live together out of wedlock, because, as it is seen in Scandinavia, marriage is a religious institution and they are not religious, therefore it's not needed.
You have to understand the culture if you are going to use them as an example.
What is important is a sense of community, which is being eroded in todays day and age. Without a sense of community, without a stake in society, one of the biggest incentives to contribute back to society is gone. When people looked back at the London riots, one of the main things pointed out was lack of ownership of houses of the rioters. No stake in society = a lack of respect towards it, which is what the 7/11 smoking kids suffer from.
.
I've never seen a credible study that shows that a "lack of community" leads to poor behavior.
I have seen plenty that demonstrate the benefits of being raised within a traditional family. I've seen studies that demonstrate that someone raised in a traditional, nuclear family is more likely to do well in school, more likely to graduate, less likely to end up in prison or commit a crime, and are statistically likely to earn more in their lifetime.
I've not seen anything like this with respect to a wider "community."
I'm not trying to suggest that having a pastor, or a teacher, or some other role model in a child's life isn't going to make a positive impact. It certainly is. But it's no substitute for having a mom and a dad that love you, and it's not something that has been proven we can replicate at a large scale.
You can't pay people to love and take care of kids. Money is not the issue. That's something that comes from the heart.
There's obviously no simple and easy answer to this conundrum, but blaming the kids for their disenfranchisement towards a society that offers them little but blame and scorn is not the way to go.
I'm not blaming kids, per se. It depends on their age. A 5 year old is less to blame than a 17 year old, obviously. I do expect teens to be held accountable for their actions. It's part of how they learn what is and isn't acceptable behavior.
That said, 90% of the blame does go on the parents. If you came at me and said we need to spend more money to bolster the traditional family, I would ask you what you had in mind and be in agreement, because then you're tackling the root of the issue. When you diffuse the responsibility to the greater "community," then I disagree. There is no substitute for a strong, loving family.