The correlation between absent/neglectful fathers and negative effects like these is stronger than ethnicity and social class, which you will see reflected in blacks since they have a higher rate of fatherlessness. I can't see if the newspaper brought that up, but it should if it didn't.
The problems with any thing involving "stats" and "humans" is it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to draw any meaningful conclusions, since stats and any scientific understanding of anything involving variables requires two things:
1) To be able to separate the variables one at a time
2) To repeat any event several times based on (1)
This is why all medical studies, social studies, etc. are necessarily flawed, and are dependent on the intention (conscious or unconscious) of the person or entity doing the study (which often times costs plenty of $$ if only to collect the data). So ANYTHING you see in the newspaper, medical journals, politicians, etc. is necessarily going to be SPUN a certain way for a certain reason. Usually that reason is hidden, and they results are claimed to be "scientific."
Everybody's got their own pet theories, none of which can really be "proven" or "disproven." Which means we mus rely on common sense, something FEW PEOPLE have very much of.
For example, if your above argument, it may very well be that "fatherlessness" is the main DIRECT cause, but there are many, many INDIRECT causes. (What causes fatherlessness, etc.)
You could argue that the welfare state allows for fatherlessness, but what creates the welfare state? Government? People? Combination? White people? Black people?
Most people naturally look to the government for the solution, when they might be the cause.
Which may lead to an argument that governments exist (as they have always existed in every society) due to human nature.
Which means the problems of society are ultimately because of human nature.
Which doesn't help anybody solve anything.