It remains unclear whether forensic mental health assessments for juvenile reverse transfer (to juvenile court) are distinct from those for juvenile transfer (to adult court). This survey consisted of an updated review of transfer and reverse transfer laws (in jurisdictions that have both mechanisms) in light of the generally accepted three‐factor model of functional legal capacities involved in transfer evaluations (i.e., risk, sophistication–maturity, and treatment amenability). Results indicated that a majority of states' reverse transfer statutes refer explicitly or implicitly to the same three psycholegal constructs identified as central for transfer. Given the legal similarity between transfer and reverse transfer, potential practice implications and directions for future research are discussed.