skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 221282 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Restitution in Pennsylvania: A Multimethod Investigation, Final Grant Report
Author(s): R. Barry Ruback
Date Published: August 2002
Page Count: 110
Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1167
Sale Source: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
P. O. Box 1167
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1167
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This multimethod research project, consisting of several studies, examined the imposition, payment, and effect of restitution in the State of Pennsylvania and the effects of statutory change on the behavior of judges.
Abstract: 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
Main Term(s): Restitution
Index Term(s): Decisionmaking; Judicial decisions; Mandatory Sentencing; Pennsylvania; Program evaluation; Program implementation; Recidivism; Sentence effectiveness; Sentencing/Sanctions
Note: Downloaded on January 22, 2008.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.