This report profiles the authors' study of the Pittsburgh Common Court of Pleas' court-administered arbitration of small claims and its effects on the litigants. The study sought to answer three question: 1) How does the Pittsburgh system achieve its efficiency?; 2) What were the outcomes for the litigants?; and, 3) How satisfied were the litigants with the arbitration process? First, the results indicate that Pittsburgh's system was efficient because the plaintiffs determined their case's eligibility, the Court's centralized hearing process, the minimal requirements for arbitrator appointment, and the commitment to achieve "rough justice." Second, the outcomes indicate that plaintiffs received, on average, 65% of their claim while receiving at least some compensation about 80% of the time. Also, arbitration was more cost effective than trial for both plaintiffs and defendants, and representation by legal counsel correlated strongly with success. Finally, the litigants' satisfaction depended upon their perceived fairness of the process and the objective outcome. Dissatisfaction often led to an appeal and pro se litigants were much more likely to be dissatisfied.