While over 40 states have passed laws in recent years that restrict the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and allow adult treatment of juveniles who have committed particularly violent crimes, many argue that violent juvenile crime is a transitory behavior pattern and that the adult criminal justice system merely exacerbates the problem. There is little empirical evidence to determine age threshold, offender eligibility criteria for criminal court, or to inform efforts to further redefine the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Similarly, there is no evidence on the most appropriate age-crime relationship to determine which sanctioning forum is most effective in preventing recidivism and protecting public safety. The present study examines the judicial transfer decision in four urban juvenile courts for youths charged with violent offenses. The following questions are addressed: (1) on what basis does the court determine the threshold of adolescence or when the child is no longer a child; (2) which offense and offender attributes influence the decision to transfer; (3) are these variables applied consistently in the transfer decision; and (4) what are the implicit transfer policies, based on the operationalization of subjective criteria and the relative contributions of objective and discretionary criteria. The conclusion addresses the legal and policy implications of differential determinants of transfer and suggests criteria and procedures for invoking waiver as a last resort juvenile court sanction. 118 references, 3 tables, and 1 figure.