Inclusion education is an answer to the issue of educational discrimination between regular children and disabilities, so that regular students and disabilities can learn together in one class to maximize their potential without discriminating from one another. In the implementation of education, including inclusive education is inseparable from the use of IT because IT is a support of the process of education and knowledge in the future, but the problem is that children with disabilities cannot use IT commonly used by other regulators, they require specially designed technology, but the government through schools paid little attention to these issues, so researchers felt interested in conducting research on evaluating IT-based inclusion education policies in DIY 2017/2018 school year. The method used in this study is a mix of methods, namely research that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative research is research that intends to understand, the phenomenon of what is experienced by research subjects holistically by means of descriptions in the form of words and languages, while quantitative research is a process of finding knowledge that uses data in the form of numbers as a tool to analyze information about what want to know. The data collection techniques used were questionnaires (all teachers who taught in the inclusion class in 16 schools), interviews (PLB Disdikpora chairperson, Teachers in 16 Inclusion Schools), observation in 16 Inclusion Schools. The results of this study use two major concepts, namely policy design and implementation of policies incorporated into a policy evaluation of Jody Zall Kusek and Rist. In this study, researchers used 6 indicators: 1. Input, 2. Process, 3. Results, 4. Implementation, 5. Implementation Process, 6. Benefits of Implementation. So the results of the study related to this evaluation are based on the quadrants of the two scientists, quadrant I (the best place) obtained by indicators no. 2 and 6, quadrant II obtained indicator number 4, quadrant III is occupied by indicators 1 and 5 and quadrant IV indicators are obtained no 3. So that if averaged policy design (indicators no. 1-3) is obtained by the number 3.12 with a fairly good category, while the implementation of the policy (indicator no. 4- 6) is obtained by 2.77 in the fairly good category