支持性就業政策是透過身心障礙者權益保障法的施行細則，由中央政府專責主 管機構，補助地方政府辦理身心障礙者就業服務，配置充份的資源，以適當的管理 方式，採取對外招標的實行措施，使支持性就業政策委託非營利組織來達成預定政 策目標或目的。本文以第一社會福利基金會為個案，從政策目標的角度以深度訪談 法，訪談專家、學者、雇主、家長等利害關係人，針對身心障礙者支持性就業政策 目標進行研究。 本文發現為：1.身心障礙者支持性就業績效指標具有明確性，有利政策執行的 落實。2.職業輔導評量工具，對身心障礙者就業深具有價值性。3.支持性就業政策 招標方式，著重服務量取向。4.一年推介身心障礙者就業成功12 人，確實有困難。 5.嚴謹的評鑑制度內容是合理的。本研究建議：1.加強宣導身心障礙者就業政策、 2.提高企業獎勵金、激勵企業社會責任、3.加強身心障礙者之工作訓練、4. 實施工 作滿意度調查、5.支持性就業員證照制度。

Public policies for supportive employment to assist in securing the fully inclusive rights of the differently-abled as specified in the Guidelines Implementing the Differently-Abled Rights Protection Act are assigned to the central public policymakers with financial grants in aid to the local authorities to provide employment services for the differently-abled, providing sufficient resources, along with appropriate management methods, including implementation through public procurement contracting efforts, allowing supportive employment public policies to achieve their expected objectives through implementation by NPO （case of First Social Welfare Foundation）. This study relies on the in-depth interviews with stakeholders, to consider the achievement supportive employment for the differently-abled. Specifically, this thesis explored the following questions: 1. How reasonable are the objectives established by policymakers for supportive employment public policies for the differently-abled? 2. How successful do stakeholders feel that supportive employment policies for the differently-abled have been in reaching their objectives? 3. what are the primary factors influencing the achievement of policy objectives? And what responsive recommendations are indicated? This study finds that achieving an annual placement goal of 12 differently-abled
persons was difficult; contracting out of public procurement methods was not a good
system for providing employment services for the differently-abled; clearly defined
indicators for objectives for supportive employment policies were helpful in ensuring
policy implementation; training guidance and evaluation tools were very valuable in
assisting the differently-abled in- employment; and rigorous evaluation audit contents
were reasonable. Finally, recommendations are suggested for public policymakers.