On the imposition of restitution, across studies, restitution was more likely to be imposed for property offenses and for Whites than for non-Whites. Statewide analyses indicated that rural counties were more likely than urban counties to impose restitution. On the payment of restitution, it was found that characteristics expected to be related to the ability to pay were related to payment: older individuals, males, and Whites were, depending on the analysis, more likely to make payment. In regards to the effect of restitution on offenders' subsequent behavior, results from Allegheny County indicated that paying restitution was in fact related to lower recidivism. Although Philadelphia results were less clear, there was an indication that the imposition of restitution was related to lower recidivism. In the evaluation of Pennsylvania's statutory changes, results indicated that the mandatory statute has not been fully implemented. Sentencing data indicated that after the 1995 statutes making restitution mandatory, restitution was imposed in only 58 percent of eligible cases. It was suggested that judges' failure to implement the mandatory statute more fully was likely due to disagreements with policy and practical constraints. This report summarizes a multimethod research project that analyzed the imposition, payment, and effect of restitution in Pennsylvania. The five studies summarized used analyses of existing databases, collection of information from court records, surveys of decisionmakers, multiple sites, multiple levels, and multiple years. The project also included analysis of the 1995 statutory change making restitution mandatory. References and appendix