Both programs offered advice and guidance, training, work placements, mentoring, and the provision of employment opportunities to offenders under supervision in the community. Both programs aimed to improve the employment and training prospects of unemployed offenders on probation and thus, ultimately, reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The evaluation design was similar for both programs and involved obtaining data on referrals, attendance, follow-up, and outcomes over the 3-year evaluation period. Interviews were conducted with project staff, referring probation officers, probation management, and representatives of training providers, as well as with participating offenders. A 1-year reconviction study of individuals who participated in the programs was conducted during the first year of program operation. The 16-25-year-old ASSET participants had a 1-year reconviction rate of 43 percent, significantly lower than the 56-percent rate for those referred to the project who did not attend. The comparable rate for 16-25-year-olds who attended Springboard was 45 percent, compared with 32 percent for all Springboard attendees. Offenders in both projects believed that help received had a positive effect on their attitude toward employment and training. Probation staff also valued work done by both programs, as they provided specialist services while freeing up officers' time for direct work on offending behavior. Programs can be expected to have more of an impact after they have been established and had time to fine-tune program operations. Recommendations are offered for establishing similar programs. 1 table, 1 figure, and 2 references