Historically, waivering juvenile offenders to adult court has been used to target two groups: youth who are "beyond rehabilitation" and whose presence in the juvenile justice system might undermine the system's integrity and youth who have committed offenses so terrible as to require the greater punishment available in the criminal justice system. From this perspective, waiver is effective if it results in greater punishment. At the same time, many States apparently have anticipated significant deterrent effects from waiver laws. This article considers research on each of these effects. In contrast to the stipulated goals in many statutes, waiver is often used for less serious property and drug offenders, results in less serious punishments than is typical of juvenile courts, and fails to achieve significant deterrent effects. Regarding whether waiver laws reduce juvenile recidivism, research findings are clearly mixed; some studies identify lower recidivism rates, some higher, and some no difference. Research shows that some of the unintended effects of waiver laws and their implementation are the inconsistent meaning and use of waiver; plea bargaining to more serious outcomes ("unofficial" use of wavier); net widening; limited competency and unfair or harmful sanctions; disparity in the use of waiver; lengthy pretrial detention, often in adult jail facilities; the increased likelihood of victimization among youth incarcerated in adult prisons; and perceptions and experiences of unfair processing. Future research should focus on providing increased and better information on the intended and unintended effects of waiver, a coherent rationale for waiver, systems-level responses to waiver, and the utility of waiver as a symbol of juvenile justice trends. 61 references