Correction to: Exploration phase: Improving transition planning in residential out-of-home care

This Corrigendum corrects Children Australia (2026) 47(2), cha_3054. https://doi.org/10.61605/cha_3054

The authors wish to correct the following errors in the published paper.

In the Abstract, ‘46 interviews’ has been corrected to ‘47 interviewees’ and ‘105 surveys’ has been corrected to ‘104 surveys’.

In the Results, under Who is involved and how?, Young people’s participation in transition planning is variable and often indirect, Interview findings, paragraph 3, ‘… As a result of the informal participation, both staff groups reported that young people lacked awareness that they had a documented transition plan. As one cross-sector staff member reflected: …’ has been changed to ‘As a result of the informal participation, both staff groups reported that young people lacked awareness that they had a documented transition plan. As one MacKillop staff member reflected: ….’. 

In the Results, under How transition planning is implemented, Transition pathways are system-determined and reflect service availability more than young people’s readiness, paragraph 5, ‘… One MacKillop staff member likened it to an auction, critiquing the narrow criteria used to assess readiness: …’ has been changed to ‘… One cross-sector staff member likened it to an auction, critiquing the narrow criteria used to assess readiness: …’.

In the Results, under How transition planning is implemented, Multiple transition planning documents contribute to variability in practice, Survey findings, paragraph 1 ‘… while office-based staff were more likely to use ‘other’ documents (χ²(1, n = 101) = 6.982, p = 0.008) …’ has been changed to ‘… while office-based staff were more likely to use ‘other’ documents (χ²(1, n = 102) = 6.982, p = 0.008) …’.

The reference Häggman-Laitila et al. (2018) has been added to the reference list.

We apologise for the errors and any confusion this may have caused for readers.