Retired Judge Thomas Wexler and a recent letter writer make a strong argument that a good home and a good family are of supreme importance in the social, mental and intellectual development of young people ("The basis of morality, stability is family," Readers Write, Jan. 24, and "We must find, nourish root cause of moral decency," Opinion Exchange, Jan. 21). And I agree that if we had fewer dysfunctional families in our communities, we would see fewer instances of violent crime committed by our young people. But are they implying that being a dysfunctional family is a choice that people make?

There are too many dysfunctional households in our communities. I take that not only as a fact but as a condition of our society at large. These households did not become dysfunctional in a vacuum. The argument made by the writers fails to take into account the kinds of influences that all of our families are subjected to — the widening income gap, homelessness, food insecurity, lack of affordable child care for two-income families and lack of access to physical and mental health care. It has been demonstrated time and again that these conditions are detrimental to the formation of any family in our society.

Our government can and must be a positive agent for change with respect to the factors affecting our kids and their families. As a democracy, our government and its policies should reflect our values as a society. I would argue that our present government does not.

Gregory P. Olson, Eden Prairie

•••

I find myself furious as I consider both Wexler's opinion piece and a letter writer's response. Wexler frames his argument with an anecdote about crimes committed by some people who happened to be Black, and circled back, as these people always do, to the moral imperative of having a father in the home. Yes, having a father in the home was a real cause of moral decency for Ethan Crumbley — a kid (who appears to be white) who shot up a school with the gun that was his Christmas present from his parents.

Then we have the letter writer, who notes that "I visited homes where the father was absent, the mother was at work, and the grandmother was left to try to manage ... her grandchildren." He does not stop to reflect that the father might be absent because he is dead, or abusive, or imprisoned for a crime he may not have even committed. Or that the mother is at work because rent needs to be paid and the kids need food and shelter. He's just happy to note that "If there is no moral compass there, no amount of money, no social program and no law will ever cure the disease."

What we perhaps have are writers whose economic fortunes have allowed them to enjoy the upper echelons of Maslow's hierarchy without ever having to wonder where their next meal was coming from or if they would be living in their car or under a bridge next week.

The truth is that financial assistance does actually help people enormously if they can meet those most basic of needs. To imagine otherwise is a dangerous solipsism that confuses economic good fortune with moral virtue. Gentlemen, check your privilege.

Rich Furman, St. Paul

•••

I am a retired independent clinical social worker, family therapist and drug and alcohol counselor with 40 years' experience working with emotionally and behaviorally disturbed adolescents and their families.

For 20 years I was active in the development of a more than 40,000-case database measuring effectiveness of residential treatment programs (RTC) for adolescents placed in them. The Minnesota Legislative Auditor made use of it in a study about adolescent treatment needs. Annual copies of updates were sent to these departments, each legislator and county social service and court services administrator for more than 20 years.

Among our observations:

1. Nearly all the teens had been manifesting symptoms of disturbance for several years before placement. Home communities lacked therapy resources and prevention programs (and still do) for children, adolescents and families experiencing physical and emotional trauma that later led to serious behavior problems.

2. The county and state and nonprofit agencies charged with providing residential services very often lacked the resources to adequately assess, diagnose and treat of psychological trauma. Consider the recent closure of Cambia Hills after less than two years of operation, cited for 33 violations of state and federal regulations in October 2020 by the Department of Human Services. The program director was quoted in August 2020 in the Star Tribune saying, "We don't have any model that we can look to that is trying to provide the level of care for the kids we are trying to serve." Why, then, did they accept referrals?

3. In a large percentage of the lives of adolescents in this study, there was either no father involved or contact with him was toxic to healthy psychological development. No aftercare was provided for most adolescents and families.

Most of my practice was in rural Minnesota, and most referrals were from court service departments or child mental health social workers and were also characterized by father absence.

The "lock them up for a long time and they will learn to behave properly" dogma has always failed, resulting in high rates of recidivism and cost of serial imprisonments. Over the past 30 years we have become more devoid of resources nationally, not just in Minnesota, that might have moved us toward the goal of enhancing moral decency.

A common argument in favor of eliminating supportive services is that it saves taxpayers money. There are scores of studies showing that hoping to save money by withholding support ends up costing many times more than the services would have cost. The costs associated with gang violence, carjacking, mugging, robberies and theft is an alternate form of taxation.

It is not for want of information that we are experiencing the current crime wave. We have a least 50 years of research and the examples of more successful jurisdictions to inform our decisionmaking. Continued failure to provide timely support guarantees more trouble.

Richard DeBeau, Northfield

The article on Native families and child removal highlights an ongoing concern ("Minnesota foster care system perpetuates legacy of racist boarding schools, Native mothers say," Jan. 23). Few people are aware that county social workers in child welfare are not required to be licensed, and a legislative exception allows them to carry the title of social worker even if they don't have a social work degree. Minnesota's 2020 Social Worker Workforce Report referenced in the story is on licensed social workers in Minnesota.

Persons employed in other settings who have a social work degree are required to be licensed to use the title. Efforts have been repeatedly made to address this gap, but don't expect this change anytime soon. In the meantime, I advise anyone who has contact with any county social worker to ask them where they got their social work degree and if they are licensed. Some county employees have good skills, yet it's important to know if your social worker has the basic education and training in order to provide the best possible service. Some may have a social work degree, but not be licensed because they are not required to be if they work for the county.

You have a right to ask these questions, just as with any other profession.

Lake Dziengel, Minneapolis

Nice to read something positive and inspiring on these pages once again. Doug Johnson's commentary, "How to become a better volunteer" (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 19), not only provides an intelligent, thoughtful guide for volunteers, but is also a good example of how to live one's life as an involved, caring human being.

Do you vacuum, Doug?

Ursula Krawczyk, Roseville

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.