Hernando S.

Vaydal
MSCJ 1M-2C1
Psychology of Crime
7:30-10:30

CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES

A. Theories of Crime Causation

1. Choice Theory

Classical theories of crime causation hold primarily that the people’s decision to

commit crime is a matter of choice. Because it was assumed that people had freewill to

choose their behavior, those who violated the law were motivated by personal needs such

as greed, revenge, survival, and hedonism. Utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and

Jeremy Bentham argued that people weigh the benefits and consequences of their future

actions before deciding on a course of behavior. Potential violators would stop their

actions if the pain associated with a behavior outweighed its anticipated gain; conversely,

law violating behavior seems attractive if the future rewards seem far greater than the

potential punishment (Siegel et al. 2007).

Choice theory holds that person will engage in criminal behavior after weighing the

consequences and benefits of his actions. Criminal behavior is a rational choice made

by a motivated offender who perceives that the chances of gain outweigh any possible

punishment or loss (Siegel at al. 2007).

1
 “choice” theory, which is derived mainly from the expected utility model in economics,

has become a “hot” topic in criminology, sociology, political science, and law. The choice

theory posits that one takes those actions, criminal or lawful, which maximize payoff and

minimize costs (Akers, 1990).

Choice Theory is based on the simple premise that every individual only has the power

to control themselves and has limited power to control others. Applying Choice Theory

allows one to take responsibility for one’s own life and at the same time, withdraw from

attempting to direct other people’s decisions and lives. Individuals are empowered to take

responsibility for their choices and support others in taking ownership of their choices.

Negative behaviors reduce in frequency and intensity, relationships strengthen and

satisfaction in life increases.

Example of Behavior as a matter choice and How this will be influenced so that

this reaction to their feelings be changed as they do so, their behavior will be

changed:

Behavioral Change through Classroom Management:

The ultimate objectives of classroom discipline and management systems are: (1) to

create and maintain environments where learning is nurtured, valued, and efficiently

implemented; and (2) to develop self-discipline and self-control in learners. To accomplish

2
these objectives, teachers need to adopt relevant instructional and management

strategies that are derived from scientifically tested and verified theories.

Choice Theory was developed by William Glasser, a renowned American psychologist

and psychiatrist. He theorized that behavior is a choice made by an individual, based on

his or her feelings and needs, and is therefore not determined or controlled by external

circumstances. In other words, the power lies within each person to determine how he or

she will respond to the demands of the social and physical environment.

Choice Theory suggests that teachers cannot directly control the behaviors of

students, since students choose how to react to their feelings. BUT Teachers can help

students identify the circumstances that trigger their behaviors, which in turn empowers

them to change their reactions to those feelings. As they do so, their behaviors will

change.

Choice Theory holds that five core concepts are foundational to classroom

management and discipline: 1. Basic Needs, such as survival, love and belonging, power,

freedom, and fun. 2. Quality World, which includes people, activities, values, and beliefs

that are most important to each human being. 3. Reality and Perception, which suggest

that people act based upon what they perceive to be real. 4. Comparing Place, which

builds on the notion that the purpose of all behavior is to create a match between what

people perceive and what they want; and 5. Total Behavior, which has four components:

acting, thinking, feeling, and physiology. Changing any of the five components will affect

3
the others as well.5 This article emphasizes ways in which teachers can implement two

of these key concepts—Basic Needs and the Quality World, to establish classroom order

and decorum.

Choice Theory asserts that human beings have five basic needs: (1) Survival, (2) Love

and Belonging, (3) Power, (4) Freedom, and (5) Fun. These constitute the source of all

internal motivation and guide all human behavior. When teachers understand these

needs, they can transform their classrooms into places where students desire to learn,

produce high-quality work, and behave responsibly. The need for survival (which includes

food, shelter, and physical comfort), is basic to human functioning. However, there is also

a psychological component to this need, which focuses on order and security. Teachers

can help students fulfill their survival needs by encouraging them to: (1) eat nutritious

meals; (2) exercise regularly; (3) drink at least six glasses of water each day; (4) get plenty

of fresh air; and (5) get adequate amounts of rest and sleep. Teachers also need to make

sure that the lighting, seating arrangement, air circulation, and temperature of the

classroom are conducive to learning. Teachers may satisfy students’ need for order and

security by maintaining behavior guidelines that support safety and respect; and

developing consistent classroom procedures and routines that provide students with a

sense of order and security. The need for love and belonging is perhaps the most

important need in Choice Theory, and it is critical to relationship building between

students and teachers. Students who are not loved and accepted by teachers and/or

peers are likely to behave in ways that disrupt the learning process. Thus, teachers and

administrators must create caring learning communities where trust, respect, and

4
tolerance are nurtured. Some of the ways that teachers can do this are by: (1) greeting

all students as they enter the classroom; (2) allowing students the opportunity to know

them personally by sharing their outside interests, their personal convictions, and

information about their families and personal history; (3) regularly engaging students in

teambuilding activities; and (4) teaching students how to work cooperatively.

B. Origins of Criminal Behavior: Biological Factors

1. Trait Theory

The Trait Theory is just as the name says- a theory of criminology that states that

certain personality traits can predispose one to crime. It has roots in Michael Lombroso’s

which states that criminals are throwbacks to a more primality, both physically and

mentally. While Clintons theory is widely discredited due to its bias against minority

groups, he did begin the idea that one’s personality and genetics can predispose

criminality (Dechant). Individual Trait Theory is based on a mix between biological factors

and environmental factors. Loosely, we all have parameters set by our genetics, and our

experiences determine how we act. “Sociobiologists stress how biological and genetic

conditions affect the perception and learning of social behaviors, which in turn are linked

to existing environmental structures” (Siegel, 2009).

There are many factors that determine one's personality. Thus, there are many

different views on what makes up a person’s personality, what traits a person has, and

5
how to categorize not only the traits, but also the person. The most common theories

about the categorization of traits are those of Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, Hans

Eysenck, and the “Big Five” model.

Gordon Allport, one of the pioneers of trait theory, recognized that there are 4000

personality traits in the dictionary, so he split these up into three categories; Cardinal,

Central and Secondary. Cardinal traits are defined as traits that summarize a person

entirely. For example, someone who is narcissistic. Central traits are words used to

describe a person such as kind, funny, or loud. Secondary are defined as traits that only

pertain to a person in certain situations. For instance, if you become aggressive in traffic

and have “road rage” (Sincero, 2012). This can be a very important factor in the profiling

of criminals. A serial killer might have a cardinal trait of narcissism, because he is always

self-centered; a trait you cannot change. He may have central traits that include a lack of

empathy or the ability to manipulate because while he cannot be defined by these traits,

he can be described by them. Lastly, he will have secondary traits of charm or

intimidation, because these traits can be used to his advantage in certain situations to

manipulate (Kouri, 2009).

Raymond Cattell’s theory of traits recognizes the 4,000 traits from Allport’s theory,

but only utilizes about 1,700. He states that uncommon traits should not be used. He

then puts these traits into 16 categories like liveliness, dominance, and perfectionism. In

1949, he developed and published a questionnaire from these traits and it is still often

used to assess personalities. This theory also decreases the subjectivity in determining

6
personality by eliminating many of the extraneous traits that may overlap and by utilizing

a form of survey that can be easily calculated and cataloged (Sincero, 2012).

Next, we look at Much like the Three Dimensions model, there is the Big Five

model. This is a combination of Cattell and Eysenck’s theories. It states that there are

five important personality traits: extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, and neuroticism (Sincero, 2012). Many theorists believe that all other

traits can fit under these Big Five. The earlier models of trait theory focus specifically on

individual traits as the only characteristics that determine a person’s personality.

However, more modern versions of trait theory take into consideration other factors, as

well.

Not only do trait theorists focus on a person’s characteristics but also the

Individual. Trait Theory is often closely related with a person’s intelligence quotient. This

part of trait theory focuses on the relationship between learning, intelligence, personality

and how they determine criminality (Siegel, 2010). Theory suggests that individuals with

lower IQs are more likely to commit crimes. However, many scientists attribute

intelligence more to environmental factors, rather than genetics. Studies have shown that

in the past 4 generations, IQ has steadily risen, suggesting a change in environment,

rather than a change in the gene pool, since eighty years is not enough time for an entire

population genetics to change that drastically. Genetically advantaged children are also

more likely to have intelligent parents who encourage success in school. Conversely,

children who have less genetic predisposition to intelligence will often be discouraged

7
from doing well in school, thus encouraging them to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. So

what does this have to do with crime?

Many studies show that crime offenders may have lower IQs than non-

offenders. However, there are holes in this theory. It could be that all intelligence levels

commit crime equally, but that offenders with lower IQs are more likely to be caught. One

could also suggest that people with lower IQ’s are less likely to have educational

opportunities, thus are less likely to have steady or successful jobs and are therefore

more likely to feel the need to commit crime (Ellis, 2007). We know that one’s individual

traits and IQ play a large part in criminality, but to what extent? And how does one

measure something as irresolute as a trait?

Critics of trait theory suggest that there is not enough empirical evidence to support

it. It is based on broad, relative terms used to describe personalities. Trait theorists also

focus on a person’s traits in general, not in a specific situation. A person can act with low

self-preservation or low self-control in one situation, say bungee jumping, but may not

feel the same need for adrenaline in an illegal situation. Furthermore, theorists are less

interested in the development of one’s personality, instead assuming, in large part, that

people do not change. We know that to be untrue; people change often. Trait theory has

been used to determine one’s leadership abilities, and this is where many of the criticisms

stem from. Among all of the studies done on traits, many traits are not seen in every

study. The large number of personality traits makes it difficult to pinpoint the

8
characteristics that make a leader or conversely, a criminal. The theory also neglects to

what degree a trait is needed to make a person a criminal.

In 1934, psychologist L.L. Thurston developed the first attempt to record traits as

factors and came up with a 5-factor solution. Charles Spearmen, also a psychologist,

used factor analysis to develop a measure of general intelligence. Later, his student,

Raymond Cattell, developed a questionnaire to measure the 16 different personality traits

that he thought were the most important, as I stated at the beginning of this

essay. However, the results of factor analysis were often inconsistent due to human

error, inconsistencies of measurements, and researchers’ biases. In 1981, researchers

found inconsistencies in Cattell’s original work, noting many clerical errors among other

mistakes in the conducting of the experiment. Since these first attempts at measuring

personality traits, there have been many other researchers that have tried to fix the

problems not addressed originally. In 1982, a researcher named Robert Hogan

developed a study that addressed the situational issue of trait theory suggesting that a

situation only occurs within the person’s understanding, rather than the physical

world. Because of this, his theory “is often positively cited as being the only “theory” within

the five-factor model (Tyler).

There will never be one cut and dry answer as to why people commit

crimes. Almost all researchers can agree that there are many factors that go into

determining a person’s criminality, personality being one of them. As with all theories,

there are holes in the Individual Trait Theory. While it does explain biological and social

9
factors contributing to one’s personality that can predispose a person to crime, there are

many things it does not take into account, like situational decisions and the change in a

person over time. While modern studies of trait theory are addressing these holes, there

are still many controversies surrounding trait theory. In my opinion, there will never be

one single theory that explains all criminal behavior.

Example of trait theory which can be observed in real life situation.

In criminology, traits are dimensions of human personality or behavior that carry

the potential for both positive and negative value to the individual and society. This theory

is used in explaining a crime. It uses an individual’s traits as the reason for committing a

crime.

Trait theory can be broken down into three perspectives. The first perspective is

the psychodynamic perspective, which focuses on internal conflicts and connections

between childhood experiences and adult behavior.

The second perspective is the type A theory, which focuses on how individuals’

personality affects their criminal behavior. Lastly, social learning theory suggests that

criminal behavior is learned from peers and role models.

Some examples of traits include impulsivity/reflectivity, intelligence, sensation

seeking, aggression, and dependency.

10
 C. Origins of Criminal Behavior: Situational and Learning Factors

1. Social Structure Theory;

2. Social Process Theory.

Social Structure Theory and Social Process Theory are both sociological theories of

crime causation. It explains how a certain individual acquires criminal or undesirable

behavior. It describes how the agents of socialization such as family, environment,

schools, mass media, and peer groups contribute to or affect the behavior of a specific

individual; and it would also somehow manifest as to how a person responds or reacts

with regard to the conduct displayed by other persons whom he or she socialized with.

The subfields of sociological theories are: 1) Social Structure Theories which suggest that

social and economic forces operating in deteriorated lower-class areas push many of their

residents into criminal behavior patterns. Social Structure Theory has three major

branches, such as: Social Disorganization Theory, Strain Theory, and Cultural Deviance

Theory. Another subfield of sociological theory is 2) Social process Theories – which

holds that criminality is a function of individual socialization. Social process theories also

have three major branches, such as Social Learning Theory, Social Control Theory, and

Social Reaction Theory.

11
The Functional Perspective: Social Structure Theories

Social structure theories all stress that crime results from the breakdown of

society’s norms and social organization and in this sense fall under the functional

perspective outlined. They trace the roots of crime to problems in the society itself rather

than to biological or psychological problems inside individuals. By doing so, they suggest

the need to address society’s social structure in order to reduce crime. Several social

structure theories exist:

Social Disorganization Theory

A popular explanation is social disorganization theory. This approach originated

primarily in the work of Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay (1942), two social scientists

at the University of Chicago who studied that city’s delinquency rates during the first three

decades of the twentieth century. During this time, the ethnic composition of Chicago

changed considerably, as the city’s inner zones were first occupied by English, German,

and Irish immigrants, and then by Eastern European immigrants, and then by African

Americans who moved there from southern states. Shaw and McKay found that the inner

zones of Chicago consistently had the highest delinquency rates regardless of which

ethnic group lived there, and they also found that the ethnic groups’ delinquency rates

declined as they moved to outer areas of Chicago. To explain these related patterns,

Shaw and McKay reasoned that the inner zones of Chicago suffered from social

disorganization: A weakening of social institutions such as the family, school, and religion

that in turn weakens the strength of social bonds and norms and the effectiveness of

socialization. Research today confirms that crime rates are highest in neighborhoods with
12
several kinds of structural problems, including high rates of residential mobility, population

density, poverty, and single-parent families (Mazerolle, Wickes, & McBroom, 2010).

Anomie Theory

Another popular explanation is anomie theory, first formulated by Robert K. Merton

(1938) in a classic article. Writing just after the Great Depression, Merton focused on the

effects of poverty in a nation like the United States that places so much emphasis on

economic success. With this strong cultural value, wrote Merton, the poor who do not

achieve the American dream feel especially frustrated. They have several ways or

adaptations of responding to their situation.

First, said Merton, they may continue to accept the goal of economic success and

also the value of working at a job to achieve such success; Merton labeled this

adaptation conformity. Second, they may continue to favor economic success but reject

the value of working and instead use new, illegitimate means, for example theft, of gaining

money and possessions; Merton labeled this adaptation innovation. Third, they may

abandon hope of economic success but continue to work anyway because work has

become a habit. Merton labeled this adaptation ritualism. Finally, they may reject both the

goal of economic success and the means of working to achieve such success and

withdraw from society either by turning to drugs or by becoming hobos; Merton labeled

this adaptation retreatism. He also listed a fifth adaptation, which he called rebellion, to

characterize a response in which people reject economic success and working and work

to bring about a new society with new values and a new economic system.
13
 Merton’s theory was very influential for many years but eventually lost popularity,

partly because many crimes, such as assault and rape, are not committed for the

economic motive that his theory assumed, and partly because many people use drugs

and alcohol without dropping out of society, as his retreatism category assumed. In recent

years, however, scholars have rediscovered and adapted his theory, and it has regained

favor as new attention is being paid to the frustration resulting from poverty and other

strains in one’s life that in turn may produce criminal behavior (Miller, Schreck, &

Tewksbury, 2011).

The Interactionist Perspective: Social Process Theories

Social process theories all stress that crime results from the social interaction of

individuals with other people, particularly their friends and family, and thus fall under the

interactionist perspective. They trace the roots of crime to the influence that our friends

and family have on us and to the meanings and perceptions we derive from their views

and expectations. By doing so, they indicate the need to address the peer and family

context as a promising way to reduce crime.

Social process theories stress that crime results from social interaction. In

particular, our friends influence our likelihood of committing crime or not committing crime.

14
Differential Association Theory

One of the most famous criminological theories is differential association theory,

first formulated at about the same time as Merton’s anomie theory by Edwin H. Sutherland

and published in its final form in an edition of a criminology text he wrote (Sutherland,

1947). Sutherland rejected the idea, fashionable at the time, that crime had strong

biological roots and instead said it grew out of interaction with others. Specifically, he

wrote that adolescents and other individuals learn that it is acceptable to commit crime

and also how to commit crime from their interaction with their close friends. Adolescents

become delinquent if they acquire more and stronger attitudes in favor of breaking the

law than attitudes opposed to breaking the law. As Sutherland put it, “A person becomes

delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to the violation of law over

definitions unfavorable to the violation of law.” Crime and delinquency, then, result from

a very normal social process, social interaction. Adolescents are more or less at risk for

delinquency partly depending on who their friends are and what their friends do or don’t

do.

Many scholars today consider peer influences to be among the most important

contributors to delinquency and other misbehavior (Akers & Sellers, 2009). One problem

with differential association theory is that it does not explain behavior, like rape, that is

usually committed by a lone offender and that is generally the result of attitudes learned

from one’s close friends.

15
Social Bonding Theory

In a 1969 book, Causes of Delinquency, Travis Hirschi (1969) asked not what

prompts people to commit crime, but rather what keeps them from committing crime. This

question was prompted by his view that human nature is basically selfish and that it is

society’s task to tame this selfishness. He wrote that an adolescent’s bonds to society,

and specifically the bonds to family and school, help keep the adolescent from breaking

the law.

Hirschi identified several types of social bonds, but generally thought that the

closer adolescents feel to their family and teachers, the more they value their parents’

beliefs and school values, and the more time they spend with their families and on school

activities, the less likely they are to be delinquent. Turning that around, they are more

likely to be delinquent if they feel more distant from their parents and teachers, if they

place less value on their family’s and school’s values, and if they spend less time with

these two very important social institutions in their lives.

Hirschi’s social bonding theory attracted immediate attention and is one of the

most popular and influential theories in criminology today. It highlighted the importance

of families and schools for delinquency and stimulated much research on their influence.

Much of this research has focused on the relationship between parents and children.

When this relationship is warm and harmonious and when children respect their parents’

values and parents treat their children firmly but fairly, children are less likely to commit

antisocial behavior during childhood and delinquency during adolescence. Schools also

16
matter: Students who do well in school and are very involved in extracurricular activities

are less likely than other students to engage in delinquency (Bohm & Vogel, 2011).

Labeling Theory

Our criminal justice system is based on the idea that the prospect of quick arrest and

harsh punishment should deter criminal behavior. Labeling theory has the opposite idea,

as it assumes that labeling someone as a criminal or deviant, which arrest and

imprisonment certainly do, makes the person more likely to continue to offend. This result

occurs, argues the theory, because the labeling process gives someone a negative self-

image, reduces the potential for employment, and makes it difficult to have friendships

with law-abiding individuals.

Although research findings are not unanimous, several studies do find that arrest and

imprisonment increase future offending, as labeling theory assumes (Nagin, Cullen, &

Jonson, 2009). To the extent this undesired consequence occurs, efforts to stem juvenile

and adult crime through harsher punishment may sometimes have the opposite result

from their intention.

The Conflict Perspective

Several related theories fall under the conflict perspective. Although they all have

something to say about why people commit crime, their major focus is on the use and

17
misuse of the criminal law and criminal justice system to deal with crime. Three branches

of the conflict perspective exist in the study of crime and criminal justice.

The first branch is called group conflict theory, which assumes that criminal law is shaped

by the conflict among the various social groups in society that exist because of differences

in race and ethnicity, social class, religion, and other factors. Given that these groups

compete for power and influence, the groups with more power and influence try to pass

laws that ban behaviors in which subordinate groups tend to engage, and they try to use

the criminal justice system to suppress subordinate group members. A widely cited

historical example of this view is Prohibition, which was the result of years of effort by

temperance advocates, most of them from white, Anglo-Saxon, rural, and Protestant

backgrounds, to ban the manufacture, sale, and use of alcohol. Although these advocates

thought alcohol use was a sin and incurred great social costs, their hostility toward alcohol

was also motivated by their hostility toward the types of people back then who tended to

use alcohol: poor, urban, Catholic immigrants. Temperance advocates’ use of legal

means to ban alcohol was, in effect, a “symbolic crusade” against people toward whom

these advocates held prejudicial attitudes (Gusfield, 1963).

The second branch of the conflict perspective is called radical theory. Radical theory

makes the same general assumptions as group conflict theory about the use of criminal

law and criminal justice, but with one key difference: It highlights the importance of

(economic) social class more than the importance of religion, ethnicity, and other social

group characteristics. In this way, radical theory evokes the basic views of Karl Marx on

the exploitation and oppression of the poor and working class by the ruling class (Lynch

& Michalowski, 2006).

18
An early but still influential radical explanation of crime was presented by Dutch

criminologist Willem Bonger (1916). Bonger blamed the high US crime rate on its

economic system, capitalism. As an economic system, he said, capitalism emphasizes

the pursuit of profit. Yet, if someone gains profit, someone else is losing it. This emphasis

on self-gain, he said, creates an egoistic culture in which people look out for themselves

and are ready and even willing to act in a way that disadvantages other people. Amid

such a culture, he said, crime is an inevitable outcome. Bonger thought crime would be

lower in socialist societies because they place more emphasis on the welfare of one’s

group than on individual success.

Feminist approaches comprise the third branch of the conflict perspective on the study of

crime and criminal justice. Several such approaches exist, but they generally focus on at

least one of four areas: (1) the reasons girls and women commit crime; (2) the reasons

female crime is lower than male crime; (3) the victimization of girls and women by rape,

sexual assault, and domestic violence; and (4) the experience of women professionals

and offenders in the criminal justice system.

Regarding the first area, the research generally finds that girls and women commit crime

for the same reasons that boys and men commit crime: poverty, parental upbringing, and

so forth. But it also finds that both women and men “do gender” when they commit crime.

That is, they commit crime according to gender roles, at least to some extent. Thus one

study found that women robbers tend to rob other women and not to use a gun when they

do so (J. Miller & Brunson, 2000).

19
In addressing the second area, on why female crime is less common than male crime,

scholars often cite two reasons discussed earlier: gender role socialization and gender-

based differences in parental supervision. One additional reason derives from social

bonding theory: Girls feel closer to their parents than boys do, and thus are less

delinquent (Lanctôt & Blanc, 2002).

We have already commented on the victimization of women from rape, sexual assault,

and domestic violence, but the study of this topic began with work by feminist

criminologists during the 1970s. Since that time, innumerable works have addressed this

type of victimization, which is also thought to contribute to girls’ delinquency and, more

generally, female drug and alcohol abuse (Chesney-Lind & Jones, 2010).

The final area for feminist work addresses women professionals and offenders in the

criminal justice system. This body of research certainly goes beyond the scope of this

book, but it documents the many blatant and subtle forms of discrimination that women

face as police, attorneys, judges, prison guards, and other professionals (Muraskin,

2012). A primary task of research on women offenders is to determine how they fare in

the criminal justice system compared to male offenders. Studies tend to find that females

receive somewhat more lenient treatment than males for serious offenses and somewhat

harsher treatment for minor offenses, although some studies conclude that gender does

not make too much of a difference one way or the other (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004).

Examples of crimes which caused by sociological theories

20
 There are many different sociological theories. For example, perhaps has a crime

problem because people are learning from each other how to commit crimes, a theory

known as social learning theory. Or, perhaps the problem is that there is a big gap in

wealth, and class warfare is causing the problem, which is known as social conflict theory.

One key idea that the sociological theories have in common, though, is the idea

that criminal behavior is not innate to humans and circumstances affect how people act.

That is, people aren't born criminals; it is the environment in which they live that influences

how they will turn out.

It was noticed that unemployment and poverty are both high in her city. Not only

that, she's found that the higher those two things are, the higher crime rates go. It's as if

when circumstances get worse for people, they become more likely to turn to a life of

crime.

21
References:

(2019) Glenda C. Panugaling et al., Theories of crime Causation. Rex Book Store, Manila

https://wglasser.com/what-is-choice-theory/

https://criminology.fandom.com/wiki/Individual_Trait_Theory#:~:text=The%20Trait%20T

heory%20is%20just,primality%2C%20both%20physically%20and%20mentally.

https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/8-4-explaining-

crime/#:~:text=Social%20structure%20theories%20stress%20that,and%20other%20pro

blems%20in%20neighborhoods.

22