Implementation Determinants of Transition Planning in Residential Out-of-Home Care for Young People with Disability and from Multicultural and Multifaith Backgrounds

Implementation Determinants of Transition Planning in Residential Out-of-Home Care for Young People with Disability and from Multicultural and Multifaith Backgrounds | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Implementation Determinants of Transition Planning in Residential Out-of-Home Care for Young People with Disability and from Multicultural and Multifaith Backgrounds Hayley Wainwright, Helen Skouteris, Emma Galvin, Melissa Savaglio, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7662046/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 22 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Transition planning is mandated to support young people (YP) in residential out-of-home care (OoHC) to prepare them for independent living by age 18. Yet, it often falls short of meeting YP’s developmental and material needs, particularly for overrepresented cohorts with additional and intersecting needs. Two such cohorts are those living with disability and those from multicultural and multifaith (MCMF) backgrounds. The overall aim of this study was to generate knowledge to support the successful implementation of transition planning for these two cohorts of YP. The specific aims were to identify a) barriers and enablers that prevent or facilitate successful implementation; and b) strategies that improve the design and delivery of transition planning. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with staff (n = 60) involved in supporting YP leaving residential OoHC in Victoria. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive approaches guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We identified barriers and enablers across all CFIR domains: outer setting (6 factors, e.g., legislation), inner setting (4 factors, e.g., access to knowledge), characteristics of individuals (3 factors, e.g., capability), innovation (5 factors, e.g., complexity), and implementation process (2 factors, e.g., engaging YP). Recommended strategies to improve the design and delivery of transition planning for YP with disability and from MCMF backgrounds included practice adaptations, legislative reform, cross-government agreements, and workforce capability building. 1. Introduction Leaving residential out-of-home care (OoHC) marks a critical transition where young people (YP) are expected to move from state guardianship to independence by 18 years. This process is consistently linked to inequitable outcomes, shaped by childhood adversity, experiences in OoHC, and ineffective preparation to leave OoHC (Bengtsson et al., 2020 ; Mendes et al., 2023c ; Storø, 2018 ). These inequities include lower education attainment, financial insecurity, poor health, housing instability, early parenting, social isolation, and justice system involvement (Butterworth et al., 2017 ; Chikwava et al., 2022 ; Goulet et al., 2024 ; Mendes et al., 2023c ; Purtell et al., 2022 ). In Australia, residential OoHC refers to government-funded group homes staffed 24/7 for children and YP who cannot live with their parents and for whom foster or kinship care placements are unavailable (Jedwab et al., 2019 ; Thoburn, 2016 ). Residential OoHC leavers are known to experience more challenging transitions from care, due to an expectation to live independently earlier, and the group-home environment constraining opportunities for stability, life skills, and long-term relationships (Atkinson & Hyde, 2019 ; Kor et al., 2023 ; Mendes et al., 2023c ; Riemersma et al., 2023 ). A recent Australian study identified 31% of YP in OoHC were born overseas (Harris et al., 2025 ). Similarly, among YP in OoHC whose disability status was known (72%), 22% were living with disability (AIHW, 2025). Despite this disproportionate representation (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2021, 2022; Clegg et al., 2021 ; Commission for Children and Young People [CCYP], 2020; Gatwiri et al., 2024 ; Mendes & Snow, 2014 ), there is limited research examining transition planning for these cohorts, and reliable prevalence data remain unavailable (Gatwiri et al., 2024 ; Grace et al., 2025 ). Systemic factors, including racism and geographical inequities in service access contribute to the over-representation of multicultural and multifaith (MCMF) YP and those with disabilities. These YP are also more likely to enter care later, often because families relinquish care when supports to meet their disability needs are limited (Grace et al., 2025 ; Gatwiri et al., 2024 ). Regardless of individual needs, all YP in residential OoHC are expected to begin ‘transition planning’ at 15 years and 9 months. Transition planning is a task-oriented process designed to address the developmental, relational, and material needs of YP to enable them to live independently when statutory orders end at 18 years (Glynn, 2021 ; Harder et al., 2020 ; Mendes et al., 2023b ). In the State of Victoria, Australia this process is guided by the Looking After Children (LAC) framework. The framework mandates the completion of three documents to capture YP’s goals and needs across transition domains (e.g., education and/or employment engagement), along with a referral to the transition from OoHC program Better Futures. Better Futures provides ‘extended care’ through casework and flexible funding until 21 years old (DFFH, 2012, 2024; Mendes, 2023a ; 2025). Victorian government guidelines outline a range of evidence-informed practices that should be incorporated into this process, including connection to culture and community (Atwool, 2020 ; McMahon et al., 2021 ); housing (Zhao & Waugh, 2025 ); life skills (Cruz et al., 2025 ); education and/or employment engagement (Furey & Harris-Evans, 2021 ; Goulet et al., 2024 ); active youth participation (Häggman-Laitila et al., 2022); and partnering with specialist disability teams (DFFH, 2012, 2024). However, research shows that government guidelines are applied inconsistently in practice (Authors et al., 2025). Whilst we know the ‘what’ of transition planning, we do not yet know the ‘how.’ For YP from MCMF backgrounds, we know that they experience unique challenges including cultural disconnection, language barriers, and income and housing restrictions linked to legal residency status (Grace et al., 2025 ; Grage-Moore & Mendes, 2023 ; Harder et al., 2020 ; Munro et al., 2022 ; Stubbs et al., 2023 ). Migrant and refugee YP also face additional vulnerabilities associated with displacement, trauma, and limited support networks (Centre for Relational Care, 2025 ; Gullo et al., 2025 ; Harder et al., 2020 ; Hoare, 2022 ). Similarly, for YP with disability, the challenges they face are documented, including staff capability gaps in recognising and responding to disability, fragmented services, inaccessible planning processes, limited participation and restricted housing and supports (CCYP, 2020; Havlicek et al., 2016 ; Munro et al., 2022 ; Prendergast et al., 2024 ; Roberts et al., 2018 ). It is also known that transition planning that addresses cultural and disability needs is central to effective transition support (CCYP, 2020; Gill & Oakley, 2018 ; Gullo et al., 2025 ; Harder et al., 2020 ; Stubbs et al., 2023 ). However, to our knowledge, no research has focused on ‘how’ to implement transition planning specifically for YP with disability and from MCMF backgrounds in residential OoHC. We need to move beyond our understanding of the ‘what’ to ‘how’ we translate transition planning evidence into practice. Here, we apply an Implementation Science approach to better understand how we can enhance transition planning. Our aim was to better understand the ‘what’ by unpacking the multilevel barriers and enablers influencing transition planning for both cohorts. Equally important is identifying strategies that create the conditions for effective implementation (Damschroder et al., 2022 ; Nilsen & Bernhardsson, 2019 ; Powell et al., 2015 ; Weeks, 2021 ); that is, the ‘how’ we embed best practice transition planning across multiple systems and settings, to ensure successful implementation (Albers et al., 2020 ; Bunger et al., 2024 ; Weeks, 2021 ). Hence, the specific aims of this study were to identify: barriers and enablers that prevent or facilitate successful implementation of transition planning for YP with disability and those from MCMF backgrounds; and strategies to improve the design and delivery of transition planning. 2. Method 2.1. Ethics and reporting guidelines Ethics approval for this study was granted from the (blinded for peer review) Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: blinded for peer review). All participants received a written explanatory statement and provided informed consent prior to participation. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guided reporting of this study (Tong et al., 2007 ), see Supplementary File 1. 2.2. Study design To address the study aims, a qualitative study design was applied (Lim, 2024 ). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder et al., 2022 ; Reardon et al., 2025 ) was used to identify barriers and enablers (also referred to as determinants) across five domains: characteristics of the innovation (transition planning), the outer setting of organisations delivering transition planning, the inner setting of organisations, characteristics of individuals involved in implementation, and the activities in the implementation process (see Supplementary File 2). The CFIR also informed the identification of strategies to address these determinants and improve the design and delivery of transition planning. 2.3. Sample and recruitment Participants were recruited from two key groups involved in supporting YP leaving residential OoHC in Victoria: (1) MacKillop Family Services (MacKillop) staff and (2) staff employed outside MacKillop who deliver transition planning (cross-sector staff). Distinct recruitment strategies were used for each group, described below. Sample characteristics are presented in Results Table 1 . 2.3.1. MacKillop staff MacKillop staff who support YP transitioning from residential OoHC in Victoria participated in interviews or focus groups between April and November 2024. MacKillop are one of Australia’s largest providers of OoHC. When data was collected, 17% of YP aged 15–17 in MacKillop’s residential OoHC in Victoria were from MCMF backgrounds, and 64% were living with a diagnosed disability. Eligible roles were identified by MacKillop leadership and ranged from frontline residential carers to leadership positions. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling strategies to capture diverse perspectives on transition planning (Palinkas et al., 2015 ), using multiple strategies: (1) invitations distributed through MacKillop leadership; (2) promotion at a residential OoHC governance meeting; (3) distribution via internal team channels; (4) follow-up reminders from leadership. 2.3.2. Cross-sector staff Victorian cross-sector staff involved in supporting YP transitioning from residential OoHC, spanning child protection staff, a disability team, education teams and or MCMF services, participated in interviews or focus groups between August 2024 and April 2025 (DFFH, 2024; Prendergast et al., 2024 ; Authors et al., 2025). Eligible participant groups were identified by a Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing project partner overseeing the transition from OoHC portfolio, with recruitment facilitated through purposive sampling to ensure representation across roles (Palinkas et al., 2015 ). Invitations were distributed via the project partner (who obtained necessary government approvals), senior managers, and local child protection leadership teams. As this study did not aim to compare perspectives across participant groups, the terms staff and participants are used interchangeably throughout to collectively refer to both MacKillop and cross-sector staff, unless otherwise specified. 2.4. Data collection and positionality Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted to explore the research aims in depth across a range of perspectives. The interview and focus group guides included demographic information, barriers and enablers to transition planning and suggestions to improve the quality of implementation (see Supplementary File 3). The guide was informed by the CFIR to capture multilevel implementation determinants and was refined in collaboration with a researcher with a lived experience of OoHC to enhance appropriateness. The guide underwent iterative review within the research team to ensure clarity, alignment with the study aims, and suitability for participants. Data collection comprised 47 individual interviews and six focus groups with 18 participants (average of three participants per group). Focus groups with participants from the same team were used to address recruitment barriers and broaden participation. Participants selected their preferred mode of participation to maximise accessibility and comfort. Most sessions were conducted via Zoom (n = 54), with the remainder by telephone (n = 7) or in person (n = 4), lasting 36 to 126 minutes ( M = 67 minutes). Participants could review their transcripts; one participant requested theirs, but no comments or amendments were returned. A small number of staff registered but did not participate (three from MacKillop, one cross-sector). All interviews and focus groups were conducted by the first author (HW), a cisgender woman, Research Fellow, and PhD Candidate in Public Health with training in trauma-informed work with populations experiencing vulnerability. HW had no prior relationship with participants, who were informed of her role and motivation to improve outcomes for YP in OoHC. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. 2.5. Data analysis Data were analysed using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches in NVivo 15. Deductive coding was guided by the CFIR (Damschroder et al., 2022 ), with an a priori structure reflecting CFIR domains and constructs. Within this structure, inductive coding identified distinct sub-themes under specific constructs where the data showed clear differentiation. For example, within the outer setting construct of partnerships and connections, coding identified unique partnership barriers and enablers and generated sub-themes such as partnerships and connections between the National Disability Insurance Scheme and OoHC providers. Strategies proposed by participants were coded to the same CFIR domains and constructs, enabling alignment between identified barriers and enablers and suggested solutions. The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase approach: (1) data familiarisation; (2) systematic coding; (3) generating initial themes; (4) developing and reviewing themes; (5) refining and defining themes; and (6) reporting (Braun & Clarke, 2020 ). Quotes are identified as either MacKillop staff (Mac_number) or cross-sector staff (CS_number). The first author (HW) coded all transcripts. To enhance reliability, 15% of transcripts were co-coded: 9% (n = 5) by MS, and 6% (n = 3) by EG, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. Reliability was further strengthened through analytic triangulation, in which a research assistant with a lived experience of OoHC (RS) reviewed 21% (n = 8) of cross-sector transcripts. RS provided reflections on coding and emerging themes, helping to ensure the coding framework remained YP-centred. For instance, references to YP’s “engagement” in transition planning as barriers were interpreted as organisational and systemic conditions rather than individual deficits. 3. Results 3.1. Participant Demographics A total of 60 participants took part in the study. For MacKillop staff, roles were classified as either working ‘in the home’ with YP (e.g., carers and house supervisors) or in office-based roles (e.g., leadership and case management) to maintain confidentiality. Cross-sector participants were categorised by the primary focus of their role (e.g., child protection) with identifying details such as their team location withheld to protect anonymity. Table 1 Participant demographics Participants (n = 60) # (%) Regionality Metropolitan 28 (46.7) Regional/remote 19 (31.7) State-wide 8 (13.3) Cross-regions 4 (6.7) Unknown* 1 (1.7) Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander No 58 (96.7) Prefer not to say 1 (1.7) Unknown* 1 (1.7) Yes 0 (0) Born in Australia Yes 50 (83.3) No 9 (15.0) Unknown* 1 (1.7) Gender Female 46 (76.7) Male 11 (18.3) Prefer not to say 1(1.7) Self-identified – gender queer 1(1.7) Unknown* 1(1.7) Lived experience of being in OoHC No 56 (93.3) Yes 3 (5.0) Unknown* 1 (1.7) MacKillop Family Services 22 (36.7) Outside the home (e.g., leadership, case managers) 17 (28.3) Inside the home (e.g., carers and house supervisors) 5 (8.3) Cross-sector service (all outside the home) 38 (63.3) Child Protection 19 (31.7) Disability Practice Advisor Team 9 (15.0) Cultural Engagement Team 5 (8.3) Education Programs(multiple) 5 (8.3) Years’ experience Median [Percentiles] OoHC system 7.0 [3.5–13.0] Current organisation 4.0 [1.8–5.0] Note. Years of experience were non-normally distributed for both their current role ( W (59) = .69, p < .001) and OoHC ( W (59) = .89, p < .001); therefore, the median and interquartile range (Tukey’s hinges) are reported. * One child protection practitioner did not complete the demographic survey. Barriers and enablers influencing the implementation of transition planning for young people with a disability and from multicultural and multifaith backgrounds Table 2 provides a matrix of the CFIR constructs identified as determinants of transition planning for both cohorts. Detailed findings for each construct are reported in the sections below. Table 2 Matrix of CFIR constructs identified as determinants for transition planning for across cohorts CFIR Domain Characteristics of individuals Outer Setting Innovation Inner Setting Implementation Process CFIR constructs Needs Policies & laws Design Access to knowledge & information Reflecting & evaluating Capability External pressure - performance measurement Relative advantage Structural characteristics – work infrastructure Engaging recipients (YP) Opportunity Local attitudes Adaptability Relational connections Partnerships & connections Complexity Culture – recipient centredness Local conditions Evidence-base Available resources - funding 3.2. Characteristics of individuals 3.2.1. Needs Staff reported high rates of disability among YP, including Autism Spectrum Disorder (autism), Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), intellectual disability, psychosocial disability and Oppositional Defiance Disorder. They require transition planning processes tailored to their needs, including support within the placement setting, timely access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, access to appropriate housing, guidance from Disability Practice Advisor teams, and access to the Disability Support Pension (government income support). For YP with high-level disability, legal guardianship applications through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal were sometimes essential. Participants reported that these needs were commonly unmet, particularly when disability intersected with justice involvement. For MCMF YP, needs varied according to culture and life experiences, such as refugee histories, but consistently required planning processes that sustained connections to culture, language, faith, and community. Practical needs included securing permanent residency or visas to enable access to income support and housing, maintaining family connections (including with relatives overseas), and addressing health and legal issues connected to unique cultural practices, such as female genital cutting and forced marriage. Participants reported that the current transition planning processes are not designed or resourced to adequately address these needs. 3.2.2. Capability Residential OoHC and child protection staff, while trained in trauma-informed practice, self-reported limited knowledge of disability and low confidence navigating the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Participants also reported that National Disability Insurance Scheme practitioners often lacked trauma-informed training and an understanding of the OoHC system. The Disability Practice Advisor team and senior child protection practitioners acted as enablers, providing guidance on disability processes, funding pathways, housing, and legal guardianship orders. For YP from MCMF backgrounds, a barrier was that residential OoHC, and child protection staff were not “ cultural experts (Mac_13).” Cultural capability was described in two ways: (1) recognising and respecting a YP’s cultural context and autonomy; and (2) creating ongoing opportunities for cultural and faith connection despite ambivalence. While MacKillop participants described meeting the needs of MCMF YP in broader terms such as “ just the connection to culture if that's something that they wish to take on (Mac_14),” in contrast, cross-sector participants highlighted a proactive and persistent approach was needed. One participant highlighted how cultural and faith-based expertise among staff was essential for building trust and providing appropriate support: “ They want to speak to someone who speaks their language and understands or someone who understands what ethnic background they are so that they understand the stuff around their faith…all of those nuances that exist for them ” (CS_14). An enabler to transition planning for MCMF YP was the Cultural Engagement Team, whose specialist knowledge of culture, faith, legal requirements and awareness of culture as a protective factor, facilitated culturally responsive planning. As one participant reported, the “ skill set that they offer the general child protection system is fantastic…they're experts in knowing the impacts of recognising cultural context when you're assessing a young person’s scenario ” (CS_13). Staff’s own cultural backgrounds also influenced capability. For some, lived experience of migration or cultural diversity enhanced engagement, while conflicting cultural values (e.g., traditional gender roles) sometimes created challenges engaging with YP. 3.2.3. Opportunity Transition planning often began too late to complete essential disability-related processes, such as applications to both the National Disability Insurance Scheme (including psychiatrist and allied-health assessments) and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Cross-sector staff described a sense of “ panic ” (CS_22) when these applications started at 17 years as assessments and legal processes often could not be completed in time, which placed YP at risk of unsuccessful transitions from care. This was driven by either late referrals or late entries into care and left staff “ scrambling” (CS_22) to complete assessments, secure supports, and arrange housing. For MCMF YP, migration and residency required additional time and coordination, however cultural needs were often overshadowed by competing demands, and late referrals to the Cultural Engagement Team. Across cohorts, another barrier was that care teams and residential OoHC staff had limited decision-making authority compared to child protection, as one participant reported: we don't have decision-making power, we can influence and negotiate and advocate and talk about the rights of a child, but we don't make the decisions” (CS_14). When child protection workers had insufficient time to engage with staff and YP, opportunities to address disability and cultural needs were reduced. Additionally, both the Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement Teams had limited remit and were required to close support once YP left residential OoHC. An enabler across cohorts were early referrals and application processes (ideally at 15–16) to specialist services to facilitate culturally and disability responsive transition planning. 3.3. Outer setting 3.3.1. Policies & Laws Three policy and legislative factors shaped the implementation of transition planning for both cohorts: (1) leaving care legislation; (2) intersections between State and Federal government legislation; and (3) legal guardianship and administration processes. No enablers were reported. 3.3.1.1. Leaving care legislation A crucial barrier to successful transitions was the legislative requirement for YP to exit residential OoHC at age 18. This was seen to undermine the effectiveness and appropriateness of transition planning as processes were driven by birthdates rather than developmental readiness and created a sense that YP were being “ kicked out (CS_07).” The impact was significant for YP with disability, where leaving care had to align with National Disability Insurance Scheme eligibility, assessments, and funding. Similarly, for MCMF YP delays in visas, permanent residency, or income support (via Centrelink) further constrained planning. 3.3.1.2. Intersecting policy and legislation Participants highlighted that intersecting State and Federal policies governing Centrelink income support, disability services, and immigration created considerable barriers for both cohorts. For YP with disability, a central barrier was the disconnection between residential OoHC, regulated by the Child, Youth and Families Act 2005 , and disability services regulated by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 . Participants described a disconnection between the two systems, due to “ two legislations, two different rules (Mac_08), ” which hindered timely transition planning. Behaviour support plans developed by National Disability Insurance Scheme providers were sometimes difficult to implement, due to the plans being incompatible with the residential OoHC context. The most significant barrier was the timing of housing outcomes in the National Disability Insurance Scheme system, which was described as a “ complete nightmare (CS_34).” While YP must exit residential OoHC by 18 years, National Disability Insurance Scheme housing outcomes could only be confirmed after this age, creating what a practitioner called a “ catch-22 (CS_25).” Multiple staff described this process in gambling terms, with one cross-sector participant describing it as “ playing Russian roulette with YP’s lives (CS_28),” leaving some YP at risk of homelessness. An absence of priority pathways into the National Disability Insurance Scheme for YP in residential OoHC further constrained access, however an existing agreement between the National Disability Insurance Agency and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing for voluntary OoHC was seen as a replicable pathway. Centrelink income support policies also posed barriers, as accessing the Disability Support Pension required extensive assessments that did not always align with transition planning time limits. Rules preventing carers from speaking on behalf of YP after age 14 also delayed income for YP who are unwilling to ‘engage’ in the process, as YP: “ can’t have a housing option if they don’t have the Disability Support Pension (CS_10).” For MCMF YP, immigration and Centrelink policies created additional barriers. Eligibility for Centrelink payments required permanent residency yet participants reported YP waiting up to four years to receive income. YP from different countries encountered specific barriers, for example YP from New Zealand have access to a permanent residency visa, yet with restricted access to Centrelink and were described as a “ cohort that falls within the gaps (CS_17).” These intersecting policy challenges restricted access to housing, income, and other supports, heightening the risk of homelessness, exploitation, and involvement within the criminal justice system. 3.3.1.3. Legal guardianship and administration processes For YP with high-level disability, state legal processes for guardianship and administration were described as both essential and a source of delay for transition planning. Pending applications to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal stalled critical steps, such as signing rental agreements, which disrupted planning and increased the risk of unstable transitions from care. Cross-sector participants stressed that without these safeguards, YP may “ not have access to use their funds appropriately and then be left homeless or in a mess (CS_11). ” 3.3.2. External pressure - performance measurement All participant groups reported that external pressures shaped how transition planning was delivered. The legal requirement to exit care at 18 years (see Policies & Laws ) created performance targets tied to age, producing pressure to move YP out within strict timelines. This was described as a major barrier, with decisions driven by deadlines rather than developmental readiness. As one participant reflected, “ it's task-driven from a systems response…it doesn't feel like it's driven from the child's voice, it's a system response to a young person ” (CS_08). Similarly, the government mandate requiring all YP to have a transition plan by 15 years and 9 months, with regular reviews, was viewed as both ensuring that planning occurred yet encouraging compliance-driven practice. Most participants reported that fixed time limits encouraged a focus on meeting procedural obligations, with plans often completed to “ tick the box (CS_01)” rather than through meaningful engagement with YP. 3.3.3. Local Attitudes Participants identified four systemic attitudes shaping implementation: (1) expectation of self-sufficiency; (2) dignity of risk; (3) de-prioritisation of cultural needs; and (4) fixed views of family. Participants primarily reported barriers for this construct, except for prioritising culture and partnering with families. 3.3.3.1. Expectation of self-sufficiency A pervasive sector attitude reflected a paradox in which YP were seen as needing saving and protection when entering OoHC, yet they were expected to be self-sufficient by 18 years, and sometimes as early as 16 or 17 years of age. Participants described this expectation as developmentally inappropriate and inconsistent with broader societal norms, particularly for YP with disability. For some YP, cognitive functioning was reported to be younger than biological age, with one MacKillop staff member noting, “ when they're 18 they're probably only going to be functioning as an 8- to 10-year-old (Mac_11).” While most participants viewed expectations of self-sufficiency as inappropriate, some described YP as “co-dependent (CS_20)” and “ too comfortable (CS_21)” in residential OoHC, reflecting an assumption they should not rely on carers for material, physical, or emotional needs. This highlighted a contradiction: YP were deserving of care and connection, yet their reliance on carers was problematised. For MCMF YP, participants highlighted the cultural mismatch, noting that in some cultures YP do not leave the family home until marriage or at least until they have completed schooling, making the requirement to exit care at 18 years particularly inappropriate. 3.3.3.2. Dignity of risk Participants described a prevailing systemic attitude of risk avoidance that denied YP the “ dignity of risk (CS_08).” Decisions were often made for YP rather than with them, especially when their goals conflicted with professional views of their best interests. This sidelining of YP’s voices limited autonomy, ownership, and opportunities to practise decision-making or experience the age-appropriate risks that prepare them for independence. Participants highlighted the tension between a system designed to keep YP safe within OoHC and the expectation that they leave care at 18 with unresolved trauma, ongoing safety concerns, and limited independent living skills. This attitude also shaped YP’s participation in mechanisms designed to plan their transitions from care. For example, in the leaving care panel process, participants reported that while panels were intended to bring together child protection and external agencies to coordinate support, YP’s participation was absent. As one cross-sector practitioner reflected, “I went to one [a leaving care panel] the other week and there were only people from child protection there, and I thought, what are we doing (CS_07)? ” This reinforced the tendency to make decisions for, rather than with YP. 3.3.3.3. De-prioritisation of cultural needs Participants reported that cultural engagement for MCMF YP was often de-prioritised, with culture and faith treated as secondary to immediate safety concerns despite their recognised protective role against risks such as sexual and criminal exploitation. When cultural needs were overlooked, YP experienced negative impacts on their identity and mental health, whereas when they were supported, they were described as enabling positive outcomes for YP. 3.3.3.4. Fixed views of family Participants reported a prevailing sector attitude that once families were assessed as unsafe or unsuitable, this decision was rarely revisited even when circumstances changed. As one participant reflected, opportunities to support reunification or engage families more broadly were often “ lost once they’re in the system (CS_07),” with little focus on building family connections. This static view constrained transition planning by limiting opportunities to strengthen relational and cultural continuity and increased the likelihood that YP would leave care without enduring connections. In contrast, participants emphasised the value of reconsidering family involvement as part of transition planning, particularly where risks could be managed with appropriate supports. 3.3.4. Partnerships and connections Participants reported that partnerships and connections across care teams and external agencies were central to shaping the implementation of transition planning. Four sub-themes were identified: (1) care team communication and accountability; (2) partnerships with the National Disability Insurance Scheme; (3) referral pathways; and (4) relational partnerships. 3.3.4.1. Care team communication and accountability Participants described care teams as central to transition planning but reported significant barriers to their effectiveness. Information sharing was often inconsistent and informal, with cultural details collected once and rarely updated, with cross-sector teams brought in after plans were finalised and provided “ bare bones (CS_14)” information. Inadequate data sharing also limited accurate assessments, leaving National Disability Insurance Scheme and allied health staff unaware of important incidents such as recent property damage. A lack of clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability within care teams was another barrier, described by one practitioner as “ too many cooks in the kitchen (CS_07).” The Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement Teams could develop tailored transition plans, yet there were no mechanisms to ensure these plans were implemented to address YP’s needs. Enablers included clear role definitions and agreed accountability processes, as one participant reflected, “ it's the age-old things of collaboration and accountability for task s (CS_12).” 3.3.4.2. Partnerships with National Disability Insurance Scheme Participants described connections with the National Disability Insurance Scheme as essential yet challenging. Key barriers included limited communication and information sharing, alongside extensive delays, with applications reported to be “ backlogged for about six to 12 months (CS_05).” These delays impacted transition planning and risked YP leaving care without essential supports. Referrals also had to be carefully timed to ensure they were recent to meet National Disability Insurance Scheme criteria (less than two years old) and occur early enough to account for waitlists and processing times. A further barrier was the National Disability Insurance Scheme eligibility criteria. Eligibility rules left some YP moving directly from 24/7 residential OoHC into independent living without sufficient supports as “… youth services pull back [and] there isn't really anything there (Mac_20). ” This was attributed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme being designed to work with “cookie cutter (CS_10) ” disability rather than YP where there’s “transience, drug use, occupational violence concerns (CS_10).” Participants also reported an artificial delineation between disability and trauma-based behaviours, which created additional complexities. Enablers included well-functioning partnerships characterised by strong information sharing, regular meetings, and clear role delineation between care teams and providers. Practitioners highlighted the unique value of National Disability Insurance Scheme supports, which are not age or time limited, and can provide ongoing assistance beyond 18. For YP with established plans, the National Disability Insurance Scheme was often described as “ the only constant that remains with them from pre-18 into post-18 (CS_12).” However, participation is voluntary, making it important for providers to build a positive relationship with YP prior to leaving care. 3.3.4.3. Referral pathways While referrals to the Cultural Engagement and Disability Practice Advisor Teams were critical enablers, participants reported a need to increase awareness of their programs and referral pathways. High turnover and caseloads within child protection reduced understanding of referral processes, and late referrals often left insufficient time to complete essential tasks for both cohorts. Enablers included timely referral pathways supported by clear processes, with information sessions increasing staff awareness and prompting earlier referrals, and the co-location of specialist teams with child protection facilitating regular contact and reducing reliance on individual initiative. Access to child protection data also enabled proactive identification of YP with disability, embedding support earlier in transition planning. However, even when data systems flagged YP requiring support, follow-through was described as “ a little bit sporadic (CS_12),” leading to uneven access to supports. 3.3.4.4. Relational partnerships Across cohorts, strong relationships between child protection and residential OoHC providers were also seen as critical. Regular communication, collaboration, keeping YP at the centre of decisions, and openness to specialist input were all identified as enabling factors that strengthened planning and outcomes. For MCMF YP, constructive relationships between child protection and families were described as enablers of cultural planning, with open and honest communication supporting YP to strengthen their identity and cultural connections. 3.3.5. Local conditions Participants identified three local conditions that shaped the implementation of transition planning: (1) the housing market; (2) availability and appropriateness of programs; and (3) geographical inequities. 3.3.5.1. Housing market All participants reported the shortage of safe and suitable housing as a significant barrier to the successful implementation of transition planning. The implications were particularly significant for YP with disability, who were often forced into unsafe, unsuitable, or unwanted options. One participant described a YP with autism and ADHD who was required to accept a house that had been broken into, despite him feeling “ frightened ” as “ there were no other [housing] offers (CS_21).” Eligibility rules compounded these shortages. YP with high-risk behaviours such as substance use or justice involvement were often excluded from housing programs, while those with mild intellectual disability did not meet thresholds for disability-specific accommodation. Financial insecurity also constrained housing stability, with YP in supported accommodation required to contribute most of their Disability Support Pension. One cross-sector participant suggested this was by design as “ there's some [YP] where they're worried about exploitation and family knocking back on the door [for the pension] (CS_10). ” 3.3.5.2. Program availability and appropriateness Practitioners reflected that residential and transition from OoHC programs (e.g., Better Futures) were “ trauma-informed… but not disability-focused (Mac_12),” which limited their suitability for YP with disability needs. Across cohorts, Better Futures was widely valued for extending financial and casework support beyond age 18 years and disability-specific providers were seen as critical enablers. However, participants reported common barriers including high demand, long waitlists, turnover and workforce shortages. These factors limited timely access and undermined YP’s participation, as frequent worker changes and lack of relational trust conflicted with YP’s preference for continuity with “ one person and that is it (CS_05).” Independent living skills programs were described as particularly valuable when delivered in hands-on, youth-friendly group formats that built confidence and practical skills. For MCMF YP, the availability of culturally responsive mental health services and partnerships with cultural organisations were identified as important enablers, helping to ensure services were relevant and accessible. 3.3.5.3. Geographical inequities Participants reported that YP in regional and rural areas faced greater inequities than those in metropolitan areas, due to workforce shortages, high turnover, and limited housing and support options. For YP with disability, access to allied health, specialist hospitals, therapies, and housing was less available in regional areas, sometimes requiring “ a whole day in the car just to get support (CS_04).” Workforce shortages in specialist services also left many “forced to either accept subpar support s (CS_04)” or seek services outside the region, which was rarely feasible for YP or staff. For MCMF YP, fewer culturally specific resources outside metropolitan areas, such as community groups, places of worship, and consulates limited opportunities to meet cultural needs during transition planning. Despite these inequalities, an enabler was strong interagency collaboration in some regional areas, where services worked closely to fill gaps and provide greater continuity despite resource constraints. 3.3.6. Available resources - funding Access to flexible funding streams was identified as an important enabler of transition planning. Practitioners highlighted the value of Targeted Care Packages, the Transition to Independent Living Allowance, and Home Stretch funding, which subsidised rent, housing establishment costs and additional support hours. For YP with disability, the National Disability Insurance Scheme was also an enabler when plans were resourced in proportion with their needs. Despite these supports, participants emphasised that funding was a major barrier. For YP with disability, excessive assessment costs sometimes “ almost 10 grand worth (CS_12),” posed barriers to securing National Disability Insurance Scheme packages. The fee-for-service structure also created additional barriers, as meetings with multiple National Disability Insurance Scheme-funded professionals could discourage full participation. Funding instability was also highlighted, as supports “ come and then go…the YP would lose those privileges or support that they needed just because of funding (Mac_22).” Unclear funding obligations between the National Disability Insurance Scheme and child protection created additional barriers and required negotiations about which system was responsible for funding services and at what point. For MCMF YP, the absence of Centrelink at the point of leaving care created a critical funding gap. Without permanent residency or access to payments, significant advocacy by teams was required to secure resources to meet basic needs such as housing. 3.4. Innovation domain 3.4.1. Design Participants reported that transition plans were often inaccessible for YP with disability due to the language and format limiting their usefulness. One practitioner reported that YP “can have a copy of it… depending on whether they have a disability (Mac_10).” The absence of designated domains and prompts to capture disability and MCMF goals and needs reduced suitability. For example, while the plan included an ‘identity’ domain, staff reported using it inconsistently, with one participant reflecting “ it’s confusing to work out what you put in there (Mac_19).” Barriers were also evident in the broader transition planning process. Participants pointed to the absence of a clearly defined transition planning program, which contributed to variation in practice. Service design and leaving care housing and support options were also described as unsuitable for YP’s needs, with one participant noting that “ none of our leaving care options are even remotely suitable for those YP [with a disability] (CS_28).” Specific service design barriers included the requirement for YP to abruptly leave residential OoHC and move into a new house and service system with minimal relational continuity and the post-residential OoHC engagement model placing the onus on YP to “ step into an adult model (CS_15)” before they were ready. While National Disability Insurance Scheme packages provided additional support, these were often inadequate, with one cross-sector participant noting, “ [they] get a certain number of hours a week of supports, but it’s nowhere near as much as you would get in a residential OoHC setting (CS_25).” Enablers included gradual introductions to new housing and early involvement of workers who could remain engaged beyond age 18 years, however systemic factors often constrained their feasibility. 3.4.2. Relative advantage For YP with disability, transition plans were viewed as less suitable compared to other documents. Two documents developed specifically for disability - the functional capacity assessments and positive behaviour support plans - were seen as more appropriate as they better reflected individual needs and informed tailored decision-making. As one participant explained, “ the majority of our planning comes from functional capacity assessments… we don’t… tend to refer to the LAC [transition plan] document as much (CS_25).” For MCMF YP, transition plans were seen as less suitable than cultural support plans, ecomaps, and genograms. These alternatives were more appropriate as they explored identity, family, and community connections in greater depth, were written in first-person and provided directly to YP. The cultural support plan also has domains absent from the transition plan, such as Planning for Independence, Family Identity, and Family Reunification. She was born in Iran, but it turns out that the family are Kurdish… she says things like, well, my dad’s best friend was killed for speaking Kurdish. I think that's why we're not allowed to speak Kurdish… so it's written in her cultural plan that then goes with her. (CS_14) Enablers were when transition plans were used consistently and embedded within care team processes. In these circumstances, they were considered more appropriate by cross-sector professionals, functioning as a live document that enabled coordinated and continuous planning. In contrast, when completed once and not used to guide continuous planning, transition plans were seen as tokenistic and of limited value. 3.4.3. Adaptability A consistent barrier was the lack of adaptability in transition planning due to the uniform age cut-off at 18 years ( see Policies & Laws) . This “ one size fits all (CS_03)” model reduced its perceived appropriateness for both cohorts, leaving no scope to adjust timelines to individual readiness or to accommodate additional processes. Enablers were when planning was delivered as fluid rather than fixed, with supports adapted to YPs evolving goals and circumstances. Transition planning was seen as more appropriate when staff incorporated culturally relevant information and wrote transition plans in accessible formats, such as Easy Read English. 3.4.4. Complexity Transition planning was consistently described as “ quite complex (CS_22)” particularly for YP with disability due to the assessments and coordination across services, and their capacity to participate in transition planning through standard mechanisms (e.g., care teams). Participants reported that the additional steps to meet YP’s disability needs take several months to complete. Supporting YP to develop essential life skills such as budgeting, attending appointments, or managing daily routines was also described as challenging. For MCMF YP, complexity arose to a lesser degree but still reflected additional cultural needs and staff uncertainty about how to respond. One staff member observed that planning became more complicated when cultural or faith-related considerations were overlooked in earlier stages. Importantly, some participants argued that complexity was not inherent to transition planning but created by systemic and organisational practices, with one participant noting, “ it’s not complex, we make it complex (CS_07).” No enablers were reported. 3.4.5. Evidence-base A significant barrier reported specifically for MCMF YP was their invisibility in the existing evidence-base informing transition planning. Participants noted that the lack of research undermined confidence that transition planning is informed by evidence of what works for this cohort. As one participant reflected: “ there's not much research around the experiences of YP from MCMF backgrounds and their transition from OoHC…we see that they have particularly unique needs, but they're just not visible within practice and research .” (CS_15). No enablers were reported. 3.5. Inner setting 3.5.1. Access to knowledge & information All participants reported an absence of training within their organisations to support effective transition planning for both cohorts. While guidelines exist, they were not consistently used, and no clear information was available to adapt planning for either cohort. As emphasised by one participant “ there is a lack of policy …that says explicitly this is what's required of practitioners when they're working with children from MCMF backgrounds (CS_15).” In the absence of training, transition planning relied on individual practitioner knowledge, informal peer learning, and team-based information sharing. An informal exchange of updates on programs, policies, and service options was seen as an important enabler to help teams stay informed in a constantly changing service environment. However, reliance on individual initiative meant knowledge was unevenly distributed, and high workforce turnover impacted knowledge loss. 3.5.2. Structural characteristics – work infrastructure High workloads, workforce shortages, and staff turnover across the system were identified as “ huge barrier[s] (CS_14)” to transition planning for both cohorts. Participants reported that YP were often ‘unallocated’ to a child protection practitioner, resulting in a “ no one there to be driving that work (CS_09).” As one participant described, the sector is “ so, so broken…there’s tens of thousands of vacancies within child protection (CS_16),” which constrained their ability to meet YP’s transition planning needs. The impact was compounded for YP requiring long-term, intensive processes where delays risked them leaving care without essential supports. The residential OoHC model was not seen as conducive to capacity building or gradual preparation for independence, as internal policies often restricted YP’s opportunities to develop independence. As one participant reflected, “ there’s no independent living skills happening whatsoever (CS_10).” Residential OoHC staff were reported to complete tasks on behalf of YP such as cooking, cleaning, organising appointments, and managing medication and house keys. This was described to lead to inaccurate assessments of independence, affecting disability applications by either overstating or understating their support needs. An important enabler was when staff actively supported YP to take part in daily tasks and gradually increased their autonomy, helping to build the skills and confidence needed for independent living. 3.5.3. Relational connections Frequent worker changes undermined trust and reduced YP’s willingness to participate in transition planning. Participants explained that without stable, trusting relationships, YP were less likely to feel safe engaging in core processes such as disability assessments or meeting with cultural and specialist teams. Some YP had “ five or six different workers (CS_15)” in a year, leading to lack of openness and trust with new workers. This instability not only limited participation in planning but also increased risks of disengagement from OoHC, including seeking connection outside the home leaving them vulnerable to harm. Conversely, participants described how consistent and trusting relationships enabled YP across cohorts to feel safe, supported, and more willing to participate in planning processes, underscoring positive relationships as a critical enabler of implementation. As one participant reported: “ We say, the right support at the right time…If you’ve got that early connection and people [who] know that young person and can build trust…then we see it works well .” (CS_08) 3.5.4. Culture – recipient centredness Participants described cultural barriers within the residential OoHC model undermined recipient-centred transition planning. Some staff were perceived as treating the role as “ just a job (Mac_11)” limiting the relational investment needed to engage YP in meaningful planning. No enablers were reported for this construct. 3.6. Implementation process 3.6.1. Reflecting & Evaluating Cross-sector participants reported the absence of mandated data collection on culture as a significant barrier to improving implementation for MCMF YP. This was described as a form of structural “ racism (CS_15),” and seen to prevent transition planning from being delivered with quality and effectiveness to this cohort. No enablers were reported for this construct. 3.6.2. Engaging Recipients (YP) Practitioners consistently highlighted that engaging YP in transition planning was essential yet challenging. Care team meetings, intended to capture YP’s perspectives, were often poorly attended by YP, as they were formal and overwhelming, with one participant reflecting, “ I can’t imagine any teenager responding well to being talked at and told this is how it’s going to happen versus what are your thoughts… whether you have a disability or not (CS_07).” Barriers for YP with disability included rushed and imposed processes, that demanded immediate participation, even when YP were not ready to participate. In these circumstances, planning was described as “ a waste of time for everyone (CS_04)” as YP were unlikely to utilise the plan without genuine involvement. This in turn undermined their engagement in voluntary processes such as Centrelink applications. Staff noted the need for greater structural support, even though they were “ trying really hard (CS_32)” to engage YP. Communication barriers also limited participation. Planning was not consistently introduced in culturally or disability inclusive ways, with one participant reflecting, “ we forget that there’s a human in the middle of this… we’ve become a little bit robotic (CS_05).” When complex processes such as disability or housing applications were not translated into accessible steps it created barriers to their meaningful participation, with written documents seen as insufficient, particularly for YP who were “ severely autistic (Mac_08).” Enablers included youth-friendly care team structures that reduced formality, clarified roles, and created safe spaces by connecting planning to what mattered to YP, such as “ stepping away from clinical stuff…and tapping into what is it that actually is of interest to them (CS_08).” Visual aids, ‘social stories,’ and adapted meetings that were kept short and began with YP’s input were also used to ensure the voices of YP with disabilities were captured. For MCMF YP, engagement in cultural support planning was hindered by the multi-service model, where planning was led by unfamiliar staff, reducing willingness to participate. Participation improved when Cultural Engagement Team staff attended alongside trusted residential workers, building rapport and supporting meaningful involvement. 4. Strategies to improve the design and delivery of transition planning The strategies outlined in this section were identified by all participants, who drew on their practice experience to propose solutions to improve the implementation of transition planning. They emphasise changes to policy, infrastructure, workforce capability, and service design to improve implementation for these cohorts. 4.1. Outer setting strategy recommendations Staff reported strategies centred on overcoming legislative barriers requiring YP in residential OoHC to exit at 18 years, alongside strengthening partnerships and connections and increasing resources across the system. As one participant urged “the Australian jurisdiction needs to really consider when YP are moving out of care, are they ready to leave ? Do they have those skills to live independently as adults? (CS_17) ” Table 3 Recommendations to improve outer setting conditions Outer setting constructs Recommendations Policies & laws • Implement extended care principles in residential OoHC to enable YP to remain in residential or semi-independent housing beyond 18 years where required. • Extend extended care legislation to enable transition from OoHC supports up to 25 years. • Mandate the collection of MCMF demographic data at intake and throughout transition planning to both ensure cultural needs are identified and to enable monitoring of implementation and outcomes. • Introduce accountability mechanisms to ensure cultural and disability needs are met prior to leaving care. Partnership & connections • Develop cross-government agreements, between: o the National Disability Insurance Agency and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to resolve barriers to smooth housing transitions and funding agreements. o Centrelink and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to address barriers to timely income support, including waiting periods and consent to complete applications on YPs behalf. • Enhance referral pathways into the Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement Teams by incorporating program awareness into child protection and OoHC induction processes and supporting relational strategies such as co-location and networking to encourage consistent referrals. • Explore technological solutions to promote equitable referrals to the Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement Teams, for example automatic referrals based on age or time care. • Strengthen collaboration and referral pathways with external specialist cultural organisations such as refugee and settlement agencies and culturally responsive mental health services. • Clearly define roles and responsibilities across child protection, residential OoHC staff and care team members. • Appoint a dedicated lead worker who has the remit to drive planning, with transition planning expertise and ability to regularly meet with YP. • Improve the care team meeting environment by reducing formality, clarifying roles, and creating disability and culturally safe spaces. Local conditions • Invest in diverse housing alternatives for YP with disability who do not qualify for National Disability Insurance Scheme or lead tenant programs, and for those who do not wish to move into disability-specific housing. • Invest in resources and capability building among community-led cultural organisations, including government mandated family violence training. • Suggested models included supported share houses with pooled National Disability Insurance Scheme funds and supported housing co-located with residential OoHC units. • Increase investment in life-skills programs that build incremental independence with adequate support. • Address regional inequities by investing in telehealth services, priority access, and staff resources to support out-of-area travel. • Increase intersectionality of services, including Better Futures programs that are trained in disability, culture and trauma-responsive practice. • Increase access to personal advocates for YP with disability. 4.2. Inner setting strategy recommendations Staff described strategies focused on building workforce capability and strengthening work infrastructure to enable more relational, culturally responsive, and disability-informed transition planning: New practitioners just do not know what they need to be doing, and there needs to be a component of it [disability focused transition planning]...I do not know if [current training] includes anything on children with disabilities and the supports that they need (CS_10). Table 4 Recommendations to improve inner setting conditions Inner setting constructs Recommendations Access to knowledge and information • System-wide training and ongoing capability building strategies for residential OoHC and child protection staff to (a) enhance disability knowledge and skills for YP and their families; (b) enhance cultural knowledge and skills for YP and their families; (c) best-practice transition planning for both cohorts, including service system navigation. • Training and ongoing capability building strategies for National Disability Insurance Scheme providers in OoHC practices to build shared understanding and practice across systems. • Enhance accurate cultural information is recorded and updated overtime to prevent recycling of inaccurate cultural information. Structural characteristics – work infrastructure • Reduce child protection caseloads to enable relational practice and timely identification of disability and cultural needs and subsequent assessments and referrals. • Enhance the built environment (e.g., homeliness) of residential OoHC units and reduce restrictive policies that prevent YP from incrementally developing independent living skills. • Reduce number of YP in residential OoHC homes to promote relational and placement stability. 4.3. Innovation strategy recommendations Staff identified a range of strategies to improve the design of transition planning tools and processes to make them more culturally and developmentally appropriate: A practice to help the child understand what is happening next across the board would be great…something guided with a bit of therapeutic clinical oversight to how the child is going to process it. That they can read in their own time, but it gives them the answers to the questions or where they can get the answers to their questions (Mac_10). Table 5 Recommendations to improve innovation-related conditions Innovation constructs Recommendations Design • Design a standardised transition planning tool that integrates existing high-value components such as social stories, genograms and disability transition plans into one cohesive plan. • Design supplementary materials (e.g., a visual journey map) to increase YP’s knowledge of the transition planning process, including setting expectations that relationships with carers with change. • Apply disability inclusive design principles including Easy Read to ensure transition planning processes are accessible to all YP. • Apply culturally inclusive design principles, such as language and cultural needs. • Adapt service design to prevent YP moving into semi-independent housing until they are ready. • Adapt service design to increase intensity of supports in line developmental capacity rather than age. • Adapt service design to prioritise continuity of relationships rather than transferring services and ending connections. • Adaptation is needed for YP entering care later, to ensure necessary supports are in place within limited time limits. • Strengthen family reunification and family finding practices through evidence-informed practices. Relative advantage • Implement a strengths-based goal setting and practice approaches, such as Advantage Thinking. • Refine the Better Futures program to align with developmental readiness and proactively engage YP in help-seeking, with the government’s Stronger Futures for Refugee Youth program cited as a positive practice model as they staff are instead pro-active in engaging with YP. 5. Discussion This study identified the barriers and enablers to the implementation of transition planning and strategies to strengthen the implementation for YP in residential OoHC with disability and from MCMF backgrounds. It addresses a critical gap in the literature and provides context-specific insights into why transition planning often fails to achieve intended outcomes for these cohorts. While the specific needs of YP across these cohorts differ, this study found shared implementation barriers, including legislation, service design, systemic values, and capability gaps. Enablers such as specialist expertise, adapted practices, and cross-sector partnerships could be bolstered to strengthen implementation (Bartley et al., 2022 ; Powell et al., 2015 ). These findings extend existing research by demonstrating how structural factors shape outcomes for YP leaving care (Glynn, 2021 ). The legislative requirement to leave care at 18 years emerged as the most significant barrier, disproportionately affecting both cohorts. Consistent with previous research, this legislation fostered compliance-focused practice that rushed transition planning, undermined developmental readiness, and reduced YP’s choice and agency (CCYP, 2020; McPherson et al., 2021 ). These conditions have been shown to increase the risk of unsuccessful transitions from care, including homelessness and justice involvement, which are more common among YP with disability (Bengtsson et al., 2020 ; Munro et al., 2022 ). The leaving care legislation has been widely critiqued as inequitable compared with broader social norms, as it denies YP the gradual independence and long-term support available to their peers (Bengtsson et al., 2020 ; Mendes et al., 2023a; Munro et al., 2022 ; O’Donnell et al., 2020). The consequences are significant for YP with disability, where cognitive and biological age often do not align, requiring some YP to exit care without adequate supports - a finding highlighted more than a decade ago (Mendes & Snow, 2014 ). Equity-centred reforms that extend support beyond 18 years and prioritise participation and readiness, rather than age, are therefore essential (Atkinson & Hyde, 2019 ; Gill & Oakley, 2018 ; Prendergast et al., 2024 ). Extended care reforms have been introduced across jurisdictions, but their application in residential OoHC is limited (Mendes et al., 2023b ; van Breda et al., 2020 ). An analysis of the barriers to introducing extended care reforms align with findings from this study, including stigma that positions care leavers as undeserving of the same opportunities as their peers; limited data collection; and expectations of self-reliance regardless of readiness (Mendes, 2023a ; Sims-Schouten et al., 2019 ). However, the advocacy strategies that successfully influenced extended care reforms demonstrate that legislative change is achievable through amplifying the voice of lived experience, media campaigns, lobbying politicians, and generating robust evidence (Mendes, 2023a ). Findings also highlight how intersecting systems shape the feasibility of transition planning. While government guidelines emphasise the importance of cultural connection and specialist disability supports (DFFH, 2012; 2024), our findings extend upon prior research demonstrating these supports were implemented inconsistently in practice (CCYP, 2020; Gullo et al., 2025 ; Mendes & Snow, 2014 ; Roberts et al., 2018 ). Reliance on Centrelink, housing, immigration, and the National Disability Insurance Scheme was central to YP’s transitions, yet policy differences, eligibility thresholds and funding gaps created barriers gaps that left some YP without essential resources. For example, YP with mild disabilities may were ineligible for disability housing while considered too ‘complex’ for mainstream services, heightening their risk of homelessness (CCYP, 2020; Roberts et al., 2018 ). Similarly, MCMF YP without permanent residency or with justice involvement faced prolonged waits for income support, increasing vulnerability to exploitation and homelessness (CCYP, 2020; Grage-Moore & Mendes, 2023 ; van Breda, 2020). Furthermore, for some housing programs, eligibility is contingent on participation in education or training. These conditional pathways reinforce notions of ‘deservingness’ and exclude those with the greatest needs (Glynn, 2021 ; Mendes et al., 2025 ; Roberts et al., 2018 ; Sims-Schouten et al., 2019 ). The capacity of staff to implement transition planning is shaped by conditions in other service systems. When essential resources such as housing, disability programs, or cultural supports are unavailable, the implementation of transition planning is constrained (Authors et al., 2025). Effective implementation depends on cross-sector alignment to avoid leaving YP to navigate these gaps alone (Havlicek et al., 2016 ). Strengthening collaboration between OoHC and National Disability Insurance Scheme providers is needed improve timely access to disability and allied health professionals across geographic areas (Annakin et al., 2025 ; Blair et al., 2024 ; Caines et al., 2025 ; Gatwiri et al., 2024 ; Munro et al., 2022 ). Enablers identified in this study, including co-location, accountability processes, information sharing and referral pathway knowledge, illustrate practical mechanisms for improving cross-sector partnerships. Building on these enablers requires service systems that mirror relational approaches, with organisational and structural conditions that give staff the time and remit to prioritise relationships with YP, and each other (Bartley et al., 2022 ). Partnerships should focus on reciprocity, shared funding, and seamless pathways, ensuring that neither practitioners nor YP encounter fragmented service boundaries. These strategies align with child welfare research that emphasises inter-organisational collaboration is critical to successful implementation (Akin., 2016; Bunger et al., 2024 ; Gill & Oakley, 2018 ; Grant et al., 2024 ; Prendergast et al., 2024 ; Winters et al., 2020 ). Transition planning could therefore be strengthened by adopting evidence-informed implementation science strategies, including network weaving and formalised agreements to bolster relationships and accountability (Albers et al., 2020 ; Bartley et al., 2022 ; Powell et al., 2015 ). Investing in these strategies, alongside scaling specialist disability and cultural teams, may create the structural conditions needed for staff to equitably implement transition planning. Effective implementation also depends on the capability of the workforce. Consistent with earlier findings from the CCYP (2020), staff have limited training and access to practical information needed to deliver best-practice transition planning for both cohorts. Reciprocal knowledge gaps within intersecting systems, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, created additional capability barriers due to a lack of understanding of the OoHC context and trauma-responsive practice (Annakin et al., 2025 ; CCYP, 2020). Additionally, an important opportunity identified was the need to strengthen staff capability to adequately engage YP in the planning process. Unsuccessful transitions from OoHC were commonly attributed to YP’s perceived ‘complexity’ or lack of engagement, rather than to limitations in the planning process. This reflects broader research showing that poor outcomes for YP in OoHC are justified due to their ‘complexity’ and are explained as individual accountability rather than systemic responsibility (Sims-Schouten et al., 2019 ). While practitioners made consistent efforts to involve YP, the study identified a need for additional knowledge and tools to support staff to effectively build and maintain YP’s willingness to participate. As Bengtsson et al. ( 2020 ) emphasised, YP who are less ‘engaged’ require different approaches, as they are often the most vulnerable in their transition from OoHC. Strengthening cross-sector workforce capability designed to meet the most ‘complex’ needs can enable inclusive approaches that benefit all YP (Lee & Wolf-Branigin, 2023 ). While existing guidelines provide broad direction, they require updating to offer accessible information and practice guidance on how to deliver transition planning practices, not just what to deliver (Green et al., 2021 ). However, guidelines alone are insufficient to implement practice changes (Pereira et al., 2022 ). Staff recommended ongoing capability building strategies for all staff and service systems involved in transition planning to build consistent knowledge of how to operationalise core transition planning practices (Okland & Oterholm, 2022 ). Key capability building needs among the OoHC workforce include strengthening cultural competency, including topics of service system navigation and supporting diverse cultural needs such as language, community, faith, refugee history and experiences of racism and stigma (Bates et al., 2024 ; Grace et al., 2025 ; Gullo et al., 2025 ; Hoare, 2022 ). Implementation science research highlights that training is most effective when embedded within broader strategies such as coaching and reflective supervision (Albers et al., 2020 ; Akin, 2016 ; Powell et al., 2015 ; Schelbe et al., 2020 ; Weeks, 2021 ). Specialist roles such as the Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement teams provide a strong foundation for building workforce capability. Their expertise could be leveraged to co-design capability-building strategies, which would both strengthen practice and increase awareness of their functions, improving referral pathways. Additionally, capability building strategies should be delivered by, or in partnership with, YP from lived experience advocacy groups. To achieve this, these teams require sustainable resourcing, ensuring their knowledge can be embedded across OoHC and intersecting systems to support consistent, equitable implementation of transition planning (Bartley et al., 2022 ). High caseloads, turnover, and workforce shortages undermined continuity and relational practice. These conditions limited time for timely referrals, life skills development, and cultural engagement, echoing prior findings that workload pressures weaken relational practice in child welfare (Agner et al., 2020 ; Albers et al., 2020 ; Engell et al., 2020 ; O’Donnell et al., 2020). Research has shown these conditions compromise cultural planning (Grace et al., 2025 ) and disrupt sense of belonging, security and stability for YP with disability (Gatwiri et al., 2024 ). Effective implementation therefore requires organisational conditions that provide manageable caseloads, sufficient time, and resources to balance transition planning with daily responsibilities (Gopalan et al., 2023 ; Green et al., 2021 ). Workforce wellbeing is also essential. Evidence that residential OoHC staff report higher rates of adverse childhood experiences than the general population underscores the need for supports that mitigate burnout and secondary trauma (Milne et al., 2024 ). While workforce retention is a sector priority (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, 2025; DFFH, 2021), additional strategies that strengthen morale, reduce stress, and build resilience are critical to create the stability required for consistent and effective transition planning (Agner et al., 2020 ; Engell et al., 2020 ; Riemersma et al., 2023 ). Alongside these workforce factors, the design of transition planning itself was identified as a barrier. While the intent is positive, current practices often fail to meet the needs of YP with disability and those from MCMF backgrounds. Adapted practices delivered by Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement teams demonstrate that tailored, inclusive planning is possible, but these practices are applied inconsistently in practice across mainstream OoHC providers, transition from OoHC services and child protection. These approaches should be documented and integrated into all roles to ensure all YP with disability and from MCMF backgrounds receive high quality transition planning. Barriers arose from both transition plan documentation and broader service design which required YP to enter adult systems such as Better Futures and housing programs at 18 years, often without the continuation of trusted relationships. This emphasis on premature autonomy and self-sufficiency increases risks of homelessness, poverty, and social isolation, in part, due to a lack of ongoing trusted relationships (Boman, 2025 ; Field et al., 2021 ; Glynn, 2021 ; Mendes et al., 2025 ; O’Donnell et al., 2020). International reforms show that alternative models centred on relational continuity and flexible timelines are more appropriate and feasible to implement and should be considered in the Australian context (Mendes et al., 2025 ; McGhee & Deeley, 2022 ; van Breda, 2020). Moreover, in the absence of a transition planning service design that prioritises interdependence and sustained relationships, family finding and reunification are crucial, as family engagement fosters identity, culture and access to long-term support (Herbell et al., 2024 ; MacDonald et al., 2025 ). Addressing design barriers and embedding inclusive, relational, and developmentally aligned practices may enhance the successful implementation of transition planning for YP with disability and those from MCMF backgrounds (Agner et al., 2020 ; Schmitt et al., 2025 ). Additionally, the collection of cultural identity during transition planning was identified as a strategy to ensure transition planning can be effectively adapted for MCMF YP, as the absence of cultural data undermines the ability of services to respond to cultural needs (Grace et al., 2025 ). Participants also recommended strengthening the fit and feasibility of transition planning by replacing existing plans with disability and culturally appropriate alternatives. Applying inclusive design principles to adapting transition planning processes and materials will ensure the design is appropriate for YP of all physical and cognitive abilities (Ferreira et al., 2024; Klaus et al., 2024 ; Persson et al., 2015 ; Ruble et al., 2019 ). This could include developing alternatives to written documents such as audio and visual alternatives, and transition plans that can be translated into language of choice. These recommendations align with implementation science research, which highlights the importance of adapting practices to diverse cultures and needs, and discontinuing practices that do not meet intended outcomes (Olsson et al., 2020 ; Powell et al., 2015 ; Turner et al., 2022 ; Walsh-Bailey et al., 2021 ; Weeks, 2021 ). 4.1. Strengths and limitations To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the implementation of transition planning for YP with disability and those from MCMF backgrounds, drawing on perspectives from staff across residential OoHC, child protection, and specialist cross-sector teams. The qualitative design provided rich, context-specific insights into an underexplored area, addressing the gap that these cohorts are often under-represented in research despite being over-represented in residential OoHC (Lim, 2024 ). However, this focus also limits the generalisability of findings to the broader population of care-experienced YP. To address this, complementary publications are underway: one examines transition planning across all YP, and another explores barriers and enablers to implementing education and employment supports as a core component of transition planning. Additional limitations relate to participant representation. Perspectives of residential OoHC staff were drawn from a single service provider, and only 8.3% of participants worked directly in the home with YP. While staff outside the home are primarily responsible for formal transition planning processes, staff in the home often hold the closest relationships with YP and provide unique insight into day-to-day implementation (Authors et al., 2025). Additionally, this study recruited staff only, of whom 5% had a lived experience of OoHC. This limitation has been addressed in a follow up study that explores YP’s perspectives of transition planning. Finally, self-selection bias is possible, as staff with strong views about the challenges of transition planning may have been motivated to participate. Conclusion This study provides new knowledge to improve the implementation of transition planning in residential OoHC for YP with disability and from MCMF backgrounds. We identified barriers and enablers across all CFIR domains: outer setting (6 factors, e.g., legislation), inner setting (4 factors, e.g., access to knowledge and information), characteristics of individuals (3 factors, e.g., capability), innovation (5 factors, e.g., complexity), and implementation process (2 factors, e.g., engaging YP). Participants’ recommendations are aimed at improving the fit of transition planning service design with YP’s needs and the service system context, addressing policy and legislative barriers, and enhancing capability across the sector. These findings provide an evidence-base for governments and residential OoHC providers to develop evidence-informed implementation strategies that strengthen transition planning for these cohorts. Moving from the ‘what’ to the ‘how’ is essential to enable transition planning to achieve its intended outcomes for YP leaving residential OoHC. Declarations Competing Interests: Authors have no competing interests to declare. Funding: This study was funded by MacKillop Family Services Industry Partner PhD. Data Availability Statement The data generated and/or analysed during this study are not publicly available due to their sensitive nature and the lack of participant consent for data sharing. Acknowledgement: Sarah Morris for contributing to the interview guide. MacKillop Family Services for enabling and facilitating recruitment of their staff and the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing for enabling and facilitating recruitment of cross-sector practitioners. Author Contribution H.W designed and implemented the study including conducting all data collection, transcription, coding, analysis and wrote all manuscript text and tables.H.S supported study conceptualisation and critically reviewed manuscript drafts.E.G supported co-coding and critically reviewed manucript drafts.M.S supported co-coding and critically reviewed manuscript drafts.R.S supported co-coding and critically reviewed mansucript drafts.H.M supported study conceptualisation and critically reviewed manuscript drafts.All authors reviewed the final manuscript. References Agner, J., Barile, J. P., Chandler, S. M., & Berry, M. (2020). Innovation in child welfare: Factors affecting adoption of empirically supported interventions. Children and Youth Services Review , 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105580 Akin, B. A. (2016). Practitioner views on the core functions of coaching in the implementation of an evidence-based intervention in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review , 68, 159-168. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.07.010 Albers, B., Metz, A., Burke, K., Bührmann, L., Bartley, L., Driessen, P., & Varsi, C. (2020). Implementation support skills: findings from a systematic integrative review. Research on Social Work Practice , 31(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731520967419 Annakin, L., Harris, L. G., & Higgins, D. J. (2025). Barriers to mental-health support and services for children and young people in out-of-home care: The Children in Care Collective’s audit findings. Atkinson, C., & Hyde, R. (2019). Care leavers’ views about transition: a literature review. Journal of Children's Services , 14(1), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-05-2018-0013 Atwool, N. (2020). Transition from care: Are we continuing to set care leavers up to fail in New Zealand? Children and Youth Services Review , 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104995 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Young people in out-of-home care. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/young-people Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022). Child protection Australia 2020–21. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/child-protection-australia-2020-21 Bartley, L., Metz, A., & Fleming, W. O. (2022). What implementation strategies are relational? Using Relational Theory to explore the ERIC implementation strategies. Frontiers in Health Services , 2 , 913585. Bates, S., Kayess, R., Laurens, E. J., & Katz, I. (2024). The importance of supporting evolving capacity: The need to support young people with cognitive impairment in out-of-home-care. Children and Youth Services Review , 156 , Article 107315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107315 Bengtsson, M., Sjöblom, Y., & Öberg, P. (2020). Transitional patterns when leaving care – Care leavers’ agency in a longitudinal perspective. Children and Youth Services Review , 118 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105486 Blair, C., Leonard, R., Linden, M., Teggart, T., & Mooney, S. (2024). Allied health professional support for children and young adults living in and leaving care: A systematic scoping review. Child: Care, Health and Development , 50 (1). https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.13140 Boman, M. (2025). Relationships and Identity: An ethnographic study with young people in south‐east Queensland who had left out‐of‐home care. Australian Journal of Social Issues . https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70021 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology , 18(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Bunger, A. C., Chuang, E., Girth, A. M., Lancaster, K. E., Smith, R., Phillips, R. J., Martin, J., Gadel, F., Willauer, T., Himmeger, M. J., Millisor, J., McClellan, J., Powell, B. J., Saldana, L., & Aarons, G. A. (2024). Specifying cross-system collaboration strategies for implementation: a multi-site qualitative study with child welfare and behavioral health organizations. Implementation Science , 19(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01335-1 Butterworth, S., Singh, S. P., Birchwood, M., Islam, Z., Munro, E. R., Vostanis, P., ... & Simkiss, D. (2017). Transitioning care‐leavers with mental health needs:‘they set you up to fail! ’ Child and Adolescent Mental Health , 22(3), 138-147. Caines, S., Congues, J., Costigan, L., Robinson, N., Grace, C., Franklin, L., & Argus, A. (2025). Bridging the gap: Social work practice challenges navigating support for families with disabilities. Children Australia , 47(1). https://doi.org/10.61605/cha_3043 Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare. (2025, May 5). Residential Care Learning and Development Strategy (RCLDS). https://cfecfw.org.au/learning-development/residential-care-learning-and-development-strategy-rclds/ Centre for Relational Care. (2025). ISS article. Centre for Relational Care. https://www.centreforrelationalcare.org.au/iss-article Chikwava, F., O'Donnell, M., Ferrante, A., Pakpahan, E., & Cordier, R. (2022). Patterns of homelessness and housing instability and the relationship with mental health disorders among young people transitioning from out-of-home care: Retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data. PLoS One , 17(9), e0274196. Clegg, J., Crawford, E., Spencer, S., & Matthews, D. (2021). Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) in young people leaving care in England: A study profiling the language, literacy and communication abilities of young people transitioning from care to independence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084107 Commission for Children and Young People. (2020). Keep caring: Systemic inquiry into services for young people transitioning from out-of-home care (Melbourne: Commission for Children and Young People, 2020). Cruz, D., García-Alba, L., & del Valle, J. F. (2025). Helping care leavers develop life skills: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review , 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108298 Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science , 17 (1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. (2012). Care and transition planning for leaving care framework . https://providers.dffh.vic.gov.au/care-and-transition-planning-leaving-care-framework-word Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. (2021). Child protection workforce strategy 2021–2024 . Victorian Government, Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. (2024). Leaving care . https://services.dffh.vic.gov.au/leaving-care Engell, T., Kirkøen, B., Aarons, G. A., & Hagen, K. A. (2020). Individual level predictors of implementation climate in child welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review , 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105509 Ferreira, R. D. S., & Castro, T. H. C. D. (2024). Participatory and inclusive design models from the perspective of universal design for children with autism: A systematic review. Education Sciences , 14 (6), 613. Field, A., Sen, R., Johnston, C., & Ellis, K. (2021). Turning 18 in specialised residential therapeutic care: Independence or a cliff edge? Children & Society , 35(5), 784-798. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12450 Furey, R., & Harris‐Evans, J. (2021). Work and resilience: Care leavers' experiences of navigating towards employment and independence. Child & Family Social Work , 26(3), 404-414. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12822 Gatwiri, K., McPherson, L., & James, S. (2024). Experiences of Children and young people with a Disability in Out‐of‐Home Care in Australia: A Scoping Review . Health & social care in the community , 2024(1), 3456823. Gill A., & Oakley G. (2018). Agency workers’ perceptions of cross-system collaboration to support students in out-of-home care. Children Australia , 43(1), 2106. doi.org/10.1017/cha.2018.1 Glynn, N. (2021). Understanding care leavers as youth in society: A theoretical framework for studying the transition out of care. Children and Youth Services Review , 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105829 Gopalan, G., Lee, K. A., Pisciotta, C., Hooley, C., Stephens, T., & Acri, M. (2023). Implementing a child mental health intervention in child welfare services: Stakeholder perspectives on feasibility. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders , 31(3), 204-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266221120532 Goulet, J., Maltais, C., Archambault, I., Noël, V., & Guériton, M. (2024). Supporting academic achievement of children in out-of-home care through effective interventions: results of a systematic review and meta-analyses. Children and Youth Services Review , 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107388 Grace, R., Mitchell, M., Wright, A. C., Karatasas, K., Hadley, F., Ravulo, J., Blythe, S., Ezekwem-Obi, A., & Waniganayake, M. (2025). The right to cultural connection for children in out-of-home care: Does Australian policy and practice adequately support cultural identity for culturally and linguistically diverse children? Australian Journal of Social Issues . https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70008 Grage-Moore, S., & Mendes, P. (2023). What are the factors that influence outcomes for unaccompanied humanitarian refugee minors leaving out-of-home care in Australia. Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice, Practice and Theory , 6(1), 1-24. Grage-Moore, S., Wainwright, H., Newton, D., Mendes, P., & Skouteris, H. (2025). Factors enabling smooth transitions from out-of-home care: A scoping review. Children Australia , 47(1), 3026. doi.org/10.61605/cha_3026 Grant, A., Kontak, J., Jeffers, E., Lawson, B., MacKenzie, A., Burge, F., Boulos, L., Lackie, K., Marshall, E. G., Mireault, A., Philpott, S., Sampalli, T., Sheppard-LeMoine, D., & Martin-Misener, R. (2024). Barriers and enablers to implementing interprofessional primary care teams: a narrative review of the literature using the consolidated framework for implementation research. BMC Prim Care , 25 (1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02240-0 Green, R., Bruce, L., O’Donnell, R., Quarmby, T., Hatzikiriakidis, K., Strickland, D., & Skouteris, H. (2021). “We’re Trying so Hard for Outcomes but at the Same Time We’re Not Doing Enough”: Barriers to Physical Activity for Australian Young People in Residential Out-of-home Care. Child Care in Practice , 28(4), 739-757. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2021.1895076 Gullo, F., García-Alba, L., Santos, I., & del Valle, J. F. (2025). Is Anyone There? In Social Support of Young People in and after Residential Care: Is Someone There for You? (pp. 247-267). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003424468-18 Harder, A. T., Mann-Feder, V., Oterholm, I., & Refaeli, T. (2020). Supporting transitions to adulthood for youth leaving care: Consensus based principles. Children and Youth Services Review , 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105260 Harris, L. G., Higgins, D. J., Willis, M. L., Lawrence, D., Mathews, B., Thomas, H. J., Malacova, E., Pacella, R., Scott, J. G., Finkelhor, D., Meinck, F., Erskine, H. E., & Haslam, D. M. (2025). The Prevalence and Patterns of Maltreatment, Childhood Adversity, and Mental Health Disorders in an Australian Out-Of-Home Care Sample. Child Maltreatment , 30(1), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595241246534 Havlicek, J., Bilaver, L., & Beldon, M. (2016). Barriers and facilitators of the transition to adulthood for foster youth with autism spectrum disorder: Perspectives of service providers in Illinois. Children & Youth Services Review , 60, 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.025 Herbell, K., McNamara, P., Cresswell, C., Price, M., Sweeney, M., & Bellonci, C. (2024). Are we practicing what we preach? Family partnership in therapeutic residential care for children and youth. Residential treatment for children & youth , 41 (1), 2-23. Hoare, R. (2022). Using composite case material to develop trauma-informed psychoeducation for social care workers looking after unaccompanied minors in residential care in Ireland. Health and Social Care in the Community , 30(6), e5863-e5874. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.14017 Jedwab, M., Xu, Y., Keyser, D., & Shaw, T. V. (2019). Children and youth in out-of-home care: What can predict an initial change in placement? Child Abuse and Neglect , 93, 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.04.009 Klaus, P., Edwards, K., Norvik, D., Manthiou, A., & Luong, V. H. (2024). Inclusive servicescapes: the imperative of universal design principles. Journal of Services Marketing , 38 (8), 1089-1098. Kor, K., Fernandez, E., & Spangaro, J. (2023). Placement Matching of Children and Young People within Out-of-Home Residential Care: A Qualitative Analysis. Health and Social Care in the Community , 2023. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7431351 Lee, J. A., & Wolf‐Branigin, M. (2023). Generating inclusive services for children, youth, and families: A shift to using complex systems theory. Child & Family Social Work , 28 (4), 897-907. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.13010 Lim, W. M. (2024). What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal , 33 (2), 199-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619 MacDonald, M., Oterholm, I., Kelly, B., Höjer, I., & Bennwik, I. H. B. (2025). Exploring the Meaning and Experience of Family for Youth Leaving Care: A Scoping Review. Child & Family Social Work . McGhee, K., & Deeley, S. (2022). Emerging Adulthood: Exploring the implications for care experienced young people and those who care for them. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care , 21 McMahon, T., Mortimer, P., Karatasas, K., Asif, N., Delfabbro, P., Cashmore, J., & Taylor, A. (2021). Culturally Diverse Children in Out-of-Home Care: Safety, Wellbeing, Cultural and Family Connections. Pathways of Care Longitudinal Study: Outcomes of Children and Young People in Out-of-Home Care. Research Report Number 20. Sydney. NSW Department of Department of Communities and Justice. McPherson, L., Vosz, M., Gatwiri, K., Parmenter, N., Macnamara, N., Mitchell, J., & Tucci, J. (2021). What does research tell us about young people’s participation in decision making in residential care? A systematic scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review , 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105899 Mendes, P. (2023a). “The most significant child welfare reform in a generation”: An examination of the strategies used by the Home Stretch campaign. Australian Journal of Social Issues . https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.288 Mendes, P., & Snow, P. (2014). The needs and experiences of young people with a disability transitioning from out-of-home care: The views of practitioners in Victoria, Australia. Children and Youth Services Review , 36, 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.019 Mendes, P., Bollinger, J., & Flynn, C. (2023b). Young People Transitioning from Residential out-of-home Care in Australia: The Case for Extended Care. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth , 40(3), 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571x.2022.2139330 Mendes, P., Martin, R., Jasmin Jau, M., & Jacinta Chavulak, M. (2023c). An analysis of the intersecting factors and needs that informed the experiences of young people transitioning from out of home care in the Australian states of Victoria and Western Australia. Children and Youth Services Review , 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106949 Mendes, P., Roche, S., Kristo, I., O'Donnell, M., Moore, T., Malvaso, C., Venables, J., & McDowall, J. (2025). The Introduction of Extended Out‐of‐Home Care (OOHC) Until 21 Years in Australia: A Mapping of Policy, Legislation and Programs in Each Jurisdiction. Australian Journal of Social Issues . https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.389 Milne, L., Ratushniak, A., & Nguyen, H. (2024). How adverse childhood experiences impact the professional quality of life of residential care workers: resilience as a mediator for burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and compassion satisfaction. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 3, 1423451. https://doi.org/10.3389/frcha.2024.1423451 Munro, E., Friel, S., Baker, C., Lynch, A., Walker, K., Williams, J., ... & Chater, A. M. (2022). CCTC final report: care leavers' transitions to adulthood in the context of COVID-19. University of Bedfordshire. Nilsen, P., & Bernhardsson, S. (2019). Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Services Research , 19(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3 O'Donnell, R., Macrae, A., Savaglio, M., Vicary, D., Green, R., Mendes, P., Kerridge, G., Currie, G., Diamond, S., & Skouteris, H. (2020). 'It was daunting. i was 18 and i left residential care and there was no support whatsoever': A scoping study into the transition from out-of-home-care process in Tasmania, Australia. Children Australia , 45(4), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2020.54 Okland, I., & Oterholm, I. (2022). Strengthening supportive networks for care leavers: A scoping review of social support interventions in child welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review , 138 , 106502. Olsson, T. M., Blakeslee, J., Bergström, M., & Skoog, T. (2020). Exploring fit for the cultural adaptation of a self-determination model for youth transitioning from out-of-home care: A comparison of a sample of Swedish youth with two samples of American youth in out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review , 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105484 Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental , 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y Pereira, V. C., Silva, S. N., Carvalho, V. K., Zanghelini, F., & Barreto, J. O. (2022). Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews. Health research policy and systems , 20(1), 13. Persson, H., Åhman, H., Yngling, A. A., & Gulliksen, J. (2015). Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility - historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal access in the information society , 14 (4), 505-526. Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science , 10, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 Prendergast, L., Davies, C., Seddon, D., Hartfiel, N., & Edwards, R. T. (2024). Barriers and enablers to care-leavers engagement with multi-agency support: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review , 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107501 Purtell, J., Mendes, P., Saunders, B. J., & Baidawi, S. (2022). Healing Trauma and Loss and Increasing Social Connections: Transitions from Care and Early Parenting. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal , 39 (6), 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00860-6 Reardon, C. M., Damschroder, L. J., Ashcraft, L. E., Kerins, C., Bachrach, R. L., Nevedal, A. L., Domlyn, A. M., Dodge, J., Chinman, M., & Rogal, S. (2025). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) User Guide: a five-step guide for conducting implementation research using the framework. Implementation Science , 20 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-025-01450-7 Riemersma, Y., Harder, A., Zijlstra, E., Post, W., & Kalverboer, M. (2023). Static and dynamic factors underlying placement instability in residential youth care: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review , 155 , 107298. Roberts, H., Ingold, A., Liabo, K., Manzotti, G., Reeves, D., & Bradby, H. (2018). Moving on: Transitions out of care for young people with learning disabilities in England and Sweden. British Journal of Learning Disabilities , 46(1), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12211 Ruble, L., McGrew, J. H., Snell-Rood, C., Adams, M., & Kleinert, H. (2019). Adapting COMPASS for youth with ASD to improve transition outcomes using implementation science. Journal of School Psychology , 34 (2), 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000281 Schelbe, L., Wilson, D. L., Fickler, W., Williams-Mbengue, N., & Klika, J. B. (2020). Bridging the Gaps Among Research, Policy, and Practice in the Field of Child Maltreatment Through Cross-Sector Training and Innovation. International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy, and Practice , 3(3), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-020-00054-6 Schmitt, M., Hawkins, M., & Florsheim, P. (2025). Key determinants in implementation processes: a systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implementation Science Communications , 6(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00712-1 Sims-Schouten, W., Skinner, A., & Rivett, K. (2019). Child safeguarding practices in light of the Deserving/Undeserving paradigm: A historical & contemporary analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect , 94 , 104025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104025 Storø, J. (2018). To manage on one’s own after leaving care? A discussion of the concepts independence versus interdependence. Nordic Social Work Research , 8(sup1), 104-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857x.2018.1463282 Stubbs, A., Baidawi, S., & Mendes, P. (2023). Young people transitioning from out-of-home care: their experience of informal support. A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review , 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106735 Thoburn, J. (2016). Residential care as a permanence option for young people needing longer-term care. Children and Youth Services Review , 69 , 19-28. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care , 19 , 349–357. Turner, R., Vira, E. G., Bergström, M., & Olsson, T. M. (2022). Cultural Adaptation of Interventions and the a Priori Assessment of Intervention Fit: Exploring Measurement Invariance for American and Swedish Youth Leaving Care. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work , 20 (3), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2022.2159602 van Breda, A. D., Munro, E. R., Gilligan, R., Anghel, R., Harder, A., Incarnato, M., Mann-Feder, V., Refaeli, T., Stohler, R., & Storø, J. (2020). Extended care: Global dialogue on policy, practice and research. Children and Youth Services Review , 119 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105596 Wainwright, H., Skouteris, H., Melder, A., Morris, S., Halfpenny, N., Morris, H. (2025). Exploration phase: Improving transition planning in residential out-of-home care. Children Australia . 47(3). https://doi.org/10.61605/ Walsh-Bailey, C., Tsai, E., Tabak, R. G., Morshed, A. B., Norton, W. E., McKay, V. R., ... & Gifford, S. (2021). A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models. Implementation Science , 16(1), 100. Weeks, A. (2021). Important Factors for Evidence-Based Implementation in Child Welfare Settings: A Systematic Review. Journal of Evidence Based Social Work (2019), 18(2), 129-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2020.1807433 Winters, A. M., Collins-Camargo, C., Antle, B. F., & Verbist, A. N. (2020). Implementation of system-wide change in child welfare and behavioral health: The role of capacity, collaboration, and readiness for change. Children and Youth Services Review , 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104580 Zhao, Y., & Waugh, J. (2025). Homelessness and Housing Instability Among Care Leavers in Australia: Exploring Housing Pathways and Best Practice Housing Models. Australian Journal of Social Issues . https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.392 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryFile1COREQChecklist.pdf 2.SupplementaryFile2CFIR2022constructsanddomains.pdf 2SupplementaryFile3InterviewandFocusGroupSchedule.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 22 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7662046","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":525625089,"identity":"668607d1-4b14-4ea5-99c4-4bd67eb0a255","order_by":0,"name":"Hayley Wainwright","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Monash University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hayley","middleName":"","lastName":"Wainwright","suffix":""},{"id":525625093,"identity":"7cfddec4-0f98-41c0-ab42-3e37cf0067a8","order_by":1,"name":"Helen Skouteris","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Monash University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Helen","middleName":"","lastName":"Skouteris","suffix":""},{"id":525625097,"identity":"360b1bfb-d29c-4a7f-a47f-3a6563cee4af","order_by":2,"name":"Emma Galvin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Monash University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emma","middleName":"","lastName":"Galvin","suffix":""},{"id":525625098,"identity":"61096b86-e13c-441f-b4be-4c6d58fa5597","order_by":3,"name":"Melissa Savaglio","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Monash University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melissa","middleName":"","lastName":"Savaglio","suffix":""},{"id":525625099,"identity":"9e69ae4a-756d-4ed9-a9de-595a518a19b5","order_by":4,"name":"Ruby Sait","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ruby","middleName":"","lastName":"Sait","suffix":""},{"id":525625100,"identity":"8deaaf22-9651-4fca-b234-9e2cc26fc6ba","order_by":5,"name":"Heather Morris","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Monash University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Heather","middleName":"","lastName":"Morris","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-20 03:38:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7662046/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7662046/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-025-01078-y","type":"published","date":"2026-01-23T00:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93129835,"identity":"ddbe97f0-3cd5-4e51-aa4a-bad5c2619208","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:20:56","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":195991,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscriptanonymised.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/8df5bb4652e43a1f7034ff11.docx"},{"id":93129493,"identity":"8582bb42-af74-4dee-a976-7cc324256a5c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:56","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7975,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5080aea57d1a47a1b75bf60c88f8c29d.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/39667cb1ecaab6b97205ea64.json"},{"id":93129494,"identity":"cc54b46d-62c1-484b-9cef-daca38af5a3b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:56","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":49791,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2SupplementaryFile3InterviewandFocusGroupSchedule.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/693d077232c1b6519afa4521.docx"},{"id":93129497,"identity":"57fc5b0b-c970-46d4-b07e-0b1f0b3d15b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":694445,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2.SupplementaryFile2CFIR2022constructsanddomains.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/ab2a1bbd207f4d085a78e423.pdf"},{"id":93129500,"identity":"0c8b9cd9-d4b8-4e24-9e4f-de24c1aacb3a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":477364,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFile1COREQChecklist.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/61fa047b10e15cfc7474e92f.pdf"},{"id":93129499,"identity":"dc800216-3559-437b-85d3-fb95cd3afff7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:57","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":99914,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TitlepagewcredentialsforCOREQ.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/0adc52fd7443fa260fa0a77f.docx"},{"id":93129836,"identity":"c9999c9c-a683-4e67-9e1e-44e9ffa04584","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:20:56","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":260041,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5080aea57d1a47a1b75bf60c88f8c29d1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/1948710ded1b3a228285ea86.xml"},{"id":93129504,"identity":"5d1fed17-3953-4da9-bf3f-484be276bd32","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:57","extension":"xml","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":256355,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5080aea57d1a47a1b75bf60c88f8c29d1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/510a2c73e6d3eb0e2543530e.xml"},{"id":93129503,"identity":"e862a651-e12a-4d81-a0f6-5bbfe75a93dd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:57","extension":"html","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":272175,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/ce0fc44d2c0d90ceef5baef7.html"},{"id":101055641,"identity":"22ab4139-04ac-433f-87c9-13b6a7b74a4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-24 19:56:16","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1853291,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/4463ad7e-d985-4a88-a8ba-9bea4bd118bd.pdf"},{"id":93129495,"identity":"ffe4cafb-1c43-4e00-afd3-b1c816c2a66a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":477364,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFile1COREQChecklist.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/499c96aaac75c8ea19c43568.pdf"},{"id":93129501,"identity":"7889486f-65ea-4e3d-bbc3-e34808987849","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":694445,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2.SupplementaryFile2CFIR2022constructsanddomains.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/acded2176f64585a0e446ce8.pdf"},{"id":93129496,"identity":"48cb1c86-ba7f-4439-8f76-669859b191e6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 11:12:56","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":49791,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2SupplementaryFile3InterviewandFocusGroupSchedule.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7662046/v1/bc83d8ac62e46c840396629c.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eImplementation Determinants of Transition Planning in Residential Out-of-Home Care for Young People with Disability and from Multicultural and Multifaith Backgrounds\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eLeaving residential out-of-home care (OoHC) marks a critical transition where young people (YP) are expected to move from state guardianship to independence by 18 years. This process is consistently linked to inequitable outcomes, shaped by childhood adversity, experiences in OoHC, and ineffective preparation to leave OoHC (Bengtsson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023c\u003c/span\u003e; Stor\u0026oslash;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These inequities include lower education attainment, financial insecurity, poor health, housing instability, early parenting, social isolation, and justice system involvement (Butterworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Chikwava et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Goulet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023c\u003c/span\u003e; Purtell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Australia, residential OoHC refers to government-funded group homes staffed 24/7 for children and YP who cannot live with their parents and for whom foster or kinship care placements are unavailable (Jedwab et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Thoburn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Residential OoHC leavers are known to experience more challenging transitions from care, due to an expectation to live independently earlier, and the group-home environment constraining opportunities for stability, life skills, and long-term relationships (Atkinson \u0026amp; Hyde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Kor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023c\u003c/span\u003e; Riemersma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA recent Australian study identified 31% of YP in OoHC were born overseas (Harris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, among YP in OoHC whose disability status was known (72%), 22% were living with disability (AIHW, 2025). Despite this disproportionate representation (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2021, 2022; Clegg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Commission for Children and Young People [CCYP], 2020; Gatwiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes \u0026amp; Snow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), there is limited research examining transition planning for these cohorts, and reliable prevalence data remain unavailable (Gatwiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Grace et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Systemic factors, including racism and geographical inequities in service access contribute to the over-representation of multicultural and multifaith (MCMF) YP and those with disabilities. These YP are also more likely to enter care later, often because families relinquish care when supports to meet their disability needs are limited (Grace et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Gatwiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegardless of individual needs, all YP in residential OoHC are expected to begin \u0026lsquo;transition planning\u0026rsquo; at 15 years and 9 months. Transition planning is a task-oriented process designed to address the developmental, relational, and material needs of YP to enable them to live independently when statutory orders end at 18 years (Glynn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Harder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e). In the State of Victoria, Australia this process is guided by the \u003cem\u003eLooking After Children (LAC) framework.\u003c/em\u003e The framework mandates the completion of three documents to capture YP\u0026rsquo;s goals and needs across transition domains (e.g., education and/or employment engagement), along with a referral to the transition from OoHC program Better Futures. Better Futures provides \u0026lsquo;extended care\u0026rsquo; through casework and flexible funding until 21 years old (DFFH, 2012, 2024; Mendes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e; 2025). Victorian government guidelines outline a range of evidence-informed practices that should be incorporated into this process, including connection to culture and community (Atwool, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; McMahon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); housing (Zhao \u0026amp; Waugh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e); life skills (Cruz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e); education and/or employment engagement (Furey \u0026amp; Harris-Evans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Goulet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); active youth participation (H\u0026auml;ggman-Laitila et al., 2022); and partnering with specialist disability teams (DFFH, 2012, 2024). However, research shows that government guidelines are applied inconsistently in practice (Authors et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhilst we know the \u0026lsquo;what\u0026rsquo; of transition planning, we do not yet know the \u0026lsquo;how.\u0026rsquo; For YP from MCMF backgrounds, we know that they experience unique challenges including cultural disconnection, language barriers, and income and housing restrictions linked to legal residency status (Grace et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Grage-Moore \u0026amp; Mendes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Harder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Munro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Stubbs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Migrant and refugee YP also face additional vulnerabilities associated with displacement, trauma, and limited support networks (Centre for Relational Care, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Gullo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Harder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Hoare, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, for YP with disability, the challenges they face are documented, including staff capability gaps in recognising and responding to disability, fragmented services, inaccessible planning processes, limited participation and restricted housing and supports (CCYP, 2020; Havlicek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Munro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Prendergast et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Roberts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It is also known that transition planning that addresses cultural and disability needs is central to effective transition support (CCYP, 2020; Gill \u0026amp; Oakley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Gullo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Harder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Stubbs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, to our knowledge, no research has focused on \u0026lsquo;how\u0026rsquo; to implement transition planning specifically for YP with disability and from MCMF backgrounds in residential OoHC. We need to move beyond our understanding of the \u0026lsquo;what\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;how\u0026rsquo; we translate transition planning evidence into practice. Here, we apply an Implementation Science approach to better understand how we can enhance transition planning. Our aim was to better understand the \u0026lsquo;what\u0026rsquo; by unpacking the multilevel barriers and enablers influencing transition planning for both cohorts. Equally important is identifying strategies that create the conditions for effective implementation (Damschroder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Nilsen \u0026amp; Bernhardsson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Powell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Weeks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); that is, the \u0026lsquo;how\u0026rsquo; we embed best practice transition planning across multiple systems and settings, to ensure successful implementation (Albers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Bunger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Weeks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, the specific aims of this study were to identify:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ebarriers and enablers that prevent or facilitate successful implementation of transition planning for YP with disability and those from MCMF backgrounds; and\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003estrategies to improve the design and delivery of transition planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Ethics and reporting guidelines\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003efor this study was granted from the (blinded for peer review) Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: blinded for peer review). All participants received a written explanatory statement and provided informed consent prior to participation. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guided reporting of this study (Tong et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), see Supplementary File 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Study design\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo address the study aims, a qualitative study design was applied (Lim, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Reardon et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) was used to identify barriers and enablers (also referred to as determinants) across five domains: characteristics of the \u003cem\u003einnovation\u003c/em\u003e (transition planning), the \u003cem\u003eouter setting\u003c/em\u003e of organisations delivering transition planning, the \u003cem\u003einner setting\u003c/em\u003e of organisations, \u003cem\u003echaracteristics of individuals\u003c/em\u003e involved in implementation, and the activities in the \u003cem\u003eimplementation process\u003c/em\u003e (see Supplementary File 2). The CFIR also informed the identification of strategies to address these determinants and improve the design and delivery of transition planning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Sample and recruitment\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited from two key groups involved in supporting YP leaving residential OoHC in Victoria: (1) MacKillop Family Services (MacKillop) staff and (2) staff employed outside MacKillop who deliver transition planning (cross-sector staff). Distinct recruitment strategies were used for each group, described below. Sample characteristics are presented in \u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1. MacKillop staff\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMacKillop staff who support YP transitioning from residential OoHC in Victoria participated in interviews or focus groups between April and November 2024. MacKillop are one of Australia\u0026rsquo;s largest providers of OoHC. When data was collected, 17% of YP aged 15\u0026ndash;17 in MacKillop\u0026rsquo;s residential OoHC in Victoria were from MCMF backgrounds, and 64% were living with a diagnosed disability. Eligible roles were identified by MacKillop leadership and ranged from frontline residential carers to leadership positions. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling strategies to capture diverse perspectives on transition planning (Palinkas et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), using multiple strategies: (1) invitations distributed through MacKillop leadership; (2) promotion at a residential OoHC governance meeting; (3) distribution via internal team channels; (4) follow-up reminders from leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2. Cross-sector staff\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVictorian cross-sector staff involved in supporting YP transitioning from residential OoHC, spanning child protection staff, a disability team, education teams and or MCMF services, participated in interviews or focus groups between August 2024 and April 2025 (DFFH, 2024; Prendergast et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Authors et al., 2025). Eligible participant groups were identified by a Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing project partner overseeing the transition from OoHC portfolio, with recruitment facilitated through purposive sampling to ensure representation across roles (Palinkas et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Invitations were distributed via the project partner (who obtained necessary government approvals), senior managers, and local child protection leadership teams. As this study did not aim to compare perspectives across participant groups, the terms \u003cem\u003estaff\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eparticipants\u003c/em\u003e are used interchangeably throughout to collectively refer to both MacKillop and cross-sector staff, unless otherwise specified.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data collection and positionality\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted to explore the research aims in depth across a range of perspectives. The interview and focus group guides included demographic information, barriers and enablers to transition planning and suggestions to improve the quality of implementation (see Supplementary File 3). The guide was informed by the CFIR to capture multilevel implementation determinants and was refined in collaboration with a researcher with a lived experience of OoHC to enhance appropriateness. The guide underwent iterative review within the research team to ensure clarity, alignment with the study aims, and suitability for participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eData collection comprised 47 individual interviews and six focus groups with 18 participants (average of three participants per group). Focus groups with participants from the same team were used to address recruitment barriers and broaden participation. Participants selected their preferred mode of participation to maximise accessibility and comfort. Most sessions were conducted via Zoom (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;54), with the remainder by telephone (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7) or in person (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4), lasting 36 to 126 minutes (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;67 minutes). Participants could review their transcripts; one participant requested theirs, but no comments or amendments were returned. A small number of staff registered but did not participate (three from MacKillop, one cross-sector).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll interviews and focus groups were conducted by the first author (HW), a cisgender woman, Research Fellow, and PhD Candidate in Public Health with training in trauma-informed work with populations experiencing vulnerability. HW had no prior relationship with participants, who were informed of her role and motivation to improve outcomes for YP in OoHC. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eData were analysed using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches in NVivo 15. Deductive coding was guided by the CFIR (Damschroder et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), with an a priori structure reflecting CFIR domains and constructs. Within this structure, inductive coding identified distinct sub-themes under specific constructs where the data showed clear differentiation. For example, within the outer setting construct of partnerships and connections, coding identified unique partnership barriers and enablers and generated sub-themes such as partnerships and connections between the National Disability Insurance Scheme and OoHC providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategies proposed by participants were coded to the same CFIR domains and constructs, enabling alignment between identified barriers and enablers and suggested solutions. The analysis followed Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s six-phase approach: (1) data familiarisation; (2) systematic coding; (3) generating initial themes; (4) developing and reviewing themes; (5) refining and defining themes; and (6) reporting (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Quotes are identified as either MacKillop staff (Mac_number) or cross-sector staff (CS_number).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe first author (HW) coded all transcripts. To enhance reliability, 15% of transcripts were co-coded: 9% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) by MS, and 6% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3) by EG, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. Reliability was further strengthened through analytic triangulation, in which a research assistant with a lived experience of OoHC (RS) reviewed 21% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8) of cross-sector transcripts. RS provided reflections on coding and emerging themes, helping to ensure the coding framework remained YP-centred. For instance, references to YP\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;engagement\u0026rdquo; in transition planning as barriers were interpreted as organisational and systemic conditions rather than individual deficits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Participant Demographics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 60 participants took part in the study. For MacKillop staff, roles were classified as either working \u0026lsquo;in the home\u0026rsquo; with YP (e.g., carers and house supervisors) or in office-based roles (e.g., leadership and case management) to maintain confidentiality. Cross-sector participants were categorised by the primary focus of their role (e.g., child protection) with identifying details such as their team location withheld to protect anonymity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipant demographics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026nbsp;(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;60)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e# (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegionality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMetropolitan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28 (46.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegional/remote\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19 (31.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState-wide\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8 (13.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCross-regions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (6.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnknown*\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNo\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58 (96.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrefer not to say\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnknown*\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0 (0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBorn in Australia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50 (83.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNo\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9 (15.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnknown*\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFemale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46 (76.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11 (18.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrefer not to say\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1(1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelf-identified \u0026ndash; gender queer\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1(1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnknown*\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1(1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLived experience of being in OoHC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNo\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56 (93.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 (5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnknown*\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMacKillop Family Services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e22\u0026nbsp;(36.7)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOutside the home (e.g., leadership, case managers)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17 (28.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInside the home (e.g., carers and house supervisors)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (8.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCross-sector service\u0026nbsp;(all outside the home)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e38 (63.3)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChild Protection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19 (31.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDisability Practice Advisor Team\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9 (15.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCultural Engagement Team\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (8.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEducation Programs(multiple)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (8.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYears\u0026rsquo; experience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMedian [Percentiles]\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOoHC system\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0 [3.5\u0026ndash;13.0]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCurrent organisation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.0 [1.8\u0026ndash;5.0]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e Years of experience were non-normally distributed for both their current role (\u003cem\u003eW\u003c/em\u003e(59)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and OoHC (\u003cem\u003eW\u003c/em\u003e(59)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001); therefore, the median and interquartile range (Tukey\u0026rsquo;s hinges) are reported.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e* One child protection practitioner did not complete the demographic survey.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBarriers and enablers influencing the implementation of transition planning for young people with a disability and from multicultural and multifaith backgrounds\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e provides a matrix of the CFIR constructs identified as determinants of transition planning for both cohorts. Detailed findings for each construct are reported in the sections below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMatrix of CFIR constructs identified as determinants for transition planning for across cohorts\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCFIR Domain\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of individuals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOuter Setting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInner Setting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplementation Process\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCFIR constructs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNeeds\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicies \u0026amp; laws\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDesign\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to knowledge \u0026amp; information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflecting \u0026amp; evaluating\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCapability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExternal pressure - performance measurement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelative advantage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStructural characteristics \u0026ndash; work infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEngaging recipients (YP)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOpportunity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLocal attitudes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdaptability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelational connections\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePartnerships \u0026amp; connections\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComplexity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCulture \u0026ndash; recipient centredness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLocal conditions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvidence-base\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAvailable resources - funding\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2. Characteristics of individuals\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.1. Needs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStaff reported high rates of disability among YP, including Autism Spectrum Disorder (autism), Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), intellectual disability, psychosocial disability and Oppositional Defiance Disorder. They require transition planning processes tailored to their needs, including support within the placement setting, timely access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, access to appropriate housing, guidance from Disability Practice Advisor teams, and access to the Disability Support Pension (government income support). For YP with high-level disability, legal guardianship applications through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal were sometimes essential. Participants reported that these needs were commonly unmet, particularly when disability intersected with justice involvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor MCMF YP, needs varied according to culture and life experiences, such as refugee histories, but consistently required planning processes that sustained connections to culture, language, faith, and community. Practical needs included securing permanent residency or visas to enable access to income support and housing, maintaining family connections (including with relatives overseas), and addressing health and legal issues connected to unique cultural practices, such as female genital cutting and forced marriage. Participants reported that the current transition planning processes are not designed or resourced to adequately address these needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2. Capability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResidential OoHC and child protection staff, while trained in trauma-informed practice, self-reported limited knowledge of disability and low confidence navigating the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Participants also reported that National Disability Insurance Scheme practitioners often lacked trauma-informed training and an understanding of the OoHC system. The Disability Practice Advisor team and senior child protection practitioners acted as enablers, providing guidance on disability processes, funding pathways, housing, and legal guardianship orders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor YP from MCMF backgrounds, a barrier was that residential OoHC, and child protection staff were not \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ecultural experts\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_13).\u0026rdquo; Cultural capability was described in two ways: (1) recognising and respecting a YP\u0026rsquo;s cultural context and autonomy; and (2) creating ongoing opportunities for cultural and faith connection despite ambivalence. While MacKillop participants described meeting the needs of MCMF YP in broader terms such as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ejust the connection to culture if that's something that they wish to take on\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_14),\u0026rdquo; in contrast, cross-sector participants highlighted a proactive and persistent approach was needed. One participant highlighted how cultural and faith-based expertise among staff was essential for building trust and providing appropriate support: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThey want to speak to someone who speaks their language and understands or someone who understands what ethnic background they are so that they understand the stuff around their faith\u0026hellip;all of those nuances that exist for them\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (CS_14).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn enabler to transition planning for MCMF YP was the Cultural Engagement Team, whose specialist knowledge of culture, faith, legal requirements and awareness of culture as a protective factor, facilitated culturally responsive planning. As one participant reported, the \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eskill set that they offer the general child protection system is fantastic\u0026hellip;they're experts in knowing the impacts of recognising cultural context when you're assessing a young person\u0026rsquo;s scenario\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (CS_13). Staff\u0026rsquo;s own cultural backgrounds also influenced capability. For some, lived experience of migration or cultural diversity enhanced engagement, while conflicting cultural values (e.g., traditional gender roles) sometimes created challenges engaging with YP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.3. Opportunity\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTransition planning often began too late to complete essential disability-related processes, such as applications to both the National Disability Insurance Scheme (including psychiatrist and allied-health assessments) and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Cross-sector staff described a sense of \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003epanic\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (CS_22) when these applications started at 17 years as assessments and legal processes often could not be completed in time, which placed YP at risk of unsuccessful transitions from care. This was driven by either late referrals or late entries into care and left staff \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003escrambling\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (CS_22) to complete assessments, secure supports, and arrange housing. For MCMF YP, migration and residency required additional time and coordination, however cultural needs were often overshadowed by competing demands, and late referrals to the Cultural Engagement Team.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross cohorts, another barrier was that care teams and residential OoHC staff had limited decision-making authority compared to child protection, as one participant reported: we don't have decision-making power, we can influence and negotiate and advocate and talk about the rights of a child, but we don't make the decisions\u0026rdquo; (CS_14). When child protection workers had insufficient time to engage with staff and YP, opportunities to address disability and cultural needs were reduced. Additionally, both the Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement Teams had limited remit and were required to close support once YP left residential OoHC. An enabler across cohorts were early referrals and application processes (ideally at 15\u0026ndash;16) to specialist services to facilitate culturally and disability responsive transition planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3. Outer setting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1. Policies \u0026amp; Laws\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree policy and legislative factors shaped the implementation of transition planning for both cohorts: (1) leaving care legislation; (2) intersections between State and Federal government legislation; and (3) legal guardianship and administration processes. No enablers were reported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1.1. Leaving care legislation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA crucial barrier to successful transitions was the legislative requirement for YP to exit residential OoHC at age 18. This was seen to undermine the effectiveness and appropriateness of transition planning as processes were driven by birthdates rather than developmental readiness and created a sense that YP were being \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ekicked out\u003c/em\u003e (CS_07).\u0026rdquo; The impact was significant for YP with disability, where leaving care had to align with National Disability Insurance Scheme eligibility, assessments, and funding. Similarly, for MCMF YP delays in visas, permanent residency, or income support (via Centrelink) further constrained planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1.2. Intersecting policy and legislation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants highlighted that intersecting State and Federal policies governing Centrelink income support, disability services, and immigration created considerable barriers for both cohorts. For YP with disability, a central barrier was the disconnection between residential OoHC, regulated by the \u003cem\u003eChild, Youth and Families Act 2005\u003c/em\u003e, and disability services regulated by the \u003cem\u003eNational Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013\u003c/em\u003e. Participants described a disconnection between the two systems, due to \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etwo legislations, two different rules\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_08),\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e which hindered timely transition planning. Behaviour support plans developed by National Disability Insurance Scheme providers were sometimes difficult to implement, due to the plans being incompatible with the residential OoHC context. The most significant barrier was the timing of housing outcomes in the National Disability Insurance Scheme system, which was described as a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ecomplete nightmare\u003c/em\u003e (CS_34).\u0026rdquo; While YP must exit residential OoHC by 18 years, National Disability Insurance Scheme housing outcomes could only be confirmed after this age, creating what a practitioner called a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ecatch-22\u003c/em\u003e (CS_25).\u0026rdquo; Multiple staff described this process in gambling terms, with one cross-sector participant describing it as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eplaying Russian roulette with YP\u0026rsquo;s lives\u003c/em\u003e (CS_28),\u0026rdquo; leaving some YP at risk of homelessness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn absence of priority pathways into the National Disability Insurance Scheme for YP in residential OoHC further constrained access, however an existing agreement between the National Disability Insurance Agency and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing for voluntary OoHC was seen as a replicable pathway. Centrelink income support policies also posed barriers, as accessing the Disability Support Pension required extensive assessments that did not always align with transition planning time limits. Rules preventing carers from speaking on behalf of YP after age 14 also delayed income for YP who are unwilling to \u0026lsquo;engage\u0026rsquo; in the process, as YP: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ecan\u0026rsquo;t have a housing option if they don\u0026rsquo;t have the Disability Support Pension\u003c/em\u003e (CS_10).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor MCMF YP, immigration and Centrelink policies created additional barriers. Eligibility for Centrelink payments required permanent residency yet participants reported YP waiting up to four years to receive income. YP from different countries encountered specific barriers, for example YP from New Zealand have access to a permanent residency visa, yet with restricted access to Centrelink and were described as a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ecohort that falls within the gaps\u003c/em\u003e (CS_17).\u0026rdquo; These intersecting policy challenges restricted access to housing, income, and other supports, heightening the risk of homelessness, exploitation, and involvement within the criminal justice system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1.3. Legal guardianship and administration processes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor YP with high-level disability, state legal processes for guardianship and administration were described as both essential and a source of delay for transition planning. Pending applications to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal stalled critical steps, such as signing rental agreements, which disrupted planning and increased the risk of unstable transitions from care. Cross-sector participants stressed that without these safeguards, YP may \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003enot have access to use their funds appropriately and then be left homeless or in a mess\u003c/em\u003e (CS_11).\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.2. External pressure - performance measurement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participant groups reported that external pressures shaped how transition planning was delivered. The legal requirement to exit care at 18 years (see \u003cem\u003ePolicies \u0026amp; Laws\u003c/em\u003e) created performance targets tied to age, producing pressure to move YP out within strict timelines. This was described as a major barrier, with decisions driven by deadlines rather than developmental readiness. As one participant reflected, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eit's task-driven from a systems response\u0026hellip;it doesn't feel like it's driven from the child's voice, it's a system response to a young person\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (CS_08). Similarly, the government mandate requiring all YP to have a transition plan by 15 years and 9 months, with regular reviews, was viewed as both ensuring that planning occurred yet encouraging compliance-driven practice. Most participants reported that fixed time limits encouraged a focus on meeting procedural obligations, with plans often completed to \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etick the box\u003c/em\u003e (CS_01)\u0026rdquo; rather than through meaningful engagement with YP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3. Local Attitudes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants identified four systemic attitudes shaping implementation: (1) expectation of self-sufficiency; (2) dignity of risk; (3) de-prioritisation of cultural needs; and (4) fixed views of family. Participants primarily reported barriers for this construct, except for prioritising culture and partnering with families.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3.1. Expectation of self-sufficiency\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA pervasive sector attitude reflected a paradox in which YP were seen as needing saving and protection when entering OoHC, yet they were expected to be self-sufficient by 18 years, and sometimes as early as 16 or 17 years of age. Participants described this expectation as developmentally inappropriate and inconsistent with broader societal norms, particularly for YP with disability. For some YP, cognitive functioning was reported to be younger than biological age, with one MacKillop staff member noting, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ewhen they're 18 they're probably only going to be functioning as an 8- to 10-year-old\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_11).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile most participants viewed expectations of self-sufficiency as inappropriate, some described YP as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;co-dependent\u003c/em\u003e (CS_20)\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etoo comfortable\u003c/em\u003e (CS_21)\u0026rdquo; in residential OoHC, reflecting an assumption they should not rely on carers for material, physical, or emotional needs. This highlighted a contradiction: YP were deserving of care and connection, yet their reliance on carers was problematised. For MCMF YP, participants highlighted the cultural mismatch, noting that in some cultures YP do not leave the family home until marriage or at least until they have completed schooling, making the requirement to exit care at 18 years particularly inappropriate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3.2. Dignity of risk\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants described a prevailing systemic attitude of risk avoidance that denied YP the \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003edignity of risk\u003c/em\u003e (CS_08).\u0026rdquo; Decisions were often made for YP rather than with them, especially when their goals conflicted with professional views of their best interests. This sidelining of YP\u0026rsquo;s voices limited autonomy, ownership, and opportunities to practise decision-making or experience the age-appropriate risks that prepare them for independence. Participants highlighted the tension between a system designed to keep YP safe within OoHC and the expectation that they leave care at 18 with unresolved trauma, ongoing safety concerns, and limited independent living skills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis attitude also shaped YP\u0026rsquo;s participation in mechanisms designed to plan their transitions from care. For example, in the leaving care panel process, participants reported that while panels were intended to bring together child protection and external agencies to coordinate support, YP\u0026rsquo;s participation was absent. As one cross-sector practitioner reflected, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I went to one [a leaving care panel] the other week and there were only people from child protection there, and I thought, what are we doing\u003c/em\u003e (CS_07)?\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This reinforced the tendency to make decisions for, rather than with YP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3.3. De-prioritisation of cultural needs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported that cultural engagement for MCMF YP was often de-prioritised, with culture and faith treated as secondary to immediate safety concerns despite their recognised protective role against risks such as sexual and criminal exploitation. When cultural needs were overlooked, YP experienced negative impacts on their identity and mental health, whereas when they were supported, they were described as enabling positive outcomes for YP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3.4. Fixed views of family\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported a prevailing sector attitude that once families were assessed as unsafe or unsuitable, this decision was rarely revisited even when circumstances changed. As one participant reflected, opportunities to support reunification or engage families more broadly were often \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003elost once they\u0026rsquo;re in the system\u003c/em\u003e (CS_07),\u0026rdquo; with little focus on building family connections. This static view constrained transition planning by limiting opportunities to strengthen relational and cultural continuity and increased the likelihood that YP would leave care without enduring connections. In contrast, participants emphasised the value of reconsidering family involvement as part of transition planning, particularly where risks could be managed with appropriate supports.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4. Partnerships and connections\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported that partnerships and connections across care teams and external agencies were central to shaping the implementation of transition planning. Four sub-themes were identified: (1) care team communication and accountability; (2) partnerships with the National Disability Insurance Scheme; (3) referral pathways; and (4) relational partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4.1. Care team communication and accountability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants described care teams as central to transition planning but reported significant barriers to their effectiveness. Information sharing was often inconsistent and informal, with cultural details collected once and rarely updated, with cross-sector teams brought in after plans were finalised and provided \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ebare bones\u003c/em\u003e (CS_14)\u0026rdquo; information. Inadequate data sharing also limited accurate assessments, leaving National Disability Insurance Scheme and allied health staff unaware of important incidents such as recent property damage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA lack of clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability within care teams was another barrier, described by one practitioner as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etoo many cooks in the kitchen\u003c/em\u003e (CS_07).\u0026rdquo; The Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement Teams could develop tailored transition plans, yet there were no mechanisms to ensure these plans were implemented to address YP\u0026rsquo;s needs. Enablers included clear role definitions and agreed accountability processes, as one participant reflected, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eit's the age-old things of collaboration and accountability for task\u003c/em\u003es (CS_12).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4.2. Partnerships with National Disability Insurance Scheme\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants described connections with the National Disability Insurance Scheme as essential yet challenging. Key barriers included limited communication and information sharing, alongside extensive delays, with applications reported to be \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ebacklogged for about six to 12 months\u003c/em\u003e (CS_05).\u0026rdquo; These delays impacted transition planning and risked YP leaving care without essential supports. Referrals also had to be carefully timed to ensure they were recent to meet National Disability Insurance Scheme criteria (less than two years old) and occur early enough to account for waitlists and processing times.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA further barrier was the National Disability Insurance Scheme eligibility criteria. Eligibility rules left some YP moving directly from 24/7 residential OoHC into independent living without sufficient supports as \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003eyouth services pull back [and] there isn't really anything there\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_20).\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This was attributed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme being designed to work with \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;cookie cutter\u003c/em\u003e (CS_10)\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e disability rather than YP where there\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;transience, drug use, occupational violence concerns\u003c/em\u003e (CS_10).\u0026rdquo; Participants also reported an artificial delineation between disability and trauma-based behaviours, which created additional complexities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnablers included well-functioning partnerships characterised by strong information sharing, regular meetings, and clear role delineation between care teams and providers. Practitioners highlighted the unique value of National Disability Insurance Scheme supports, which are not age or time limited, and can provide ongoing assistance beyond 18. For YP with established plans, the National Disability Insurance Scheme was often described as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethe only constant that remains with them from pre-18 into post-18\u003c/em\u003e (CS_12).\u0026rdquo; However, participation is voluntary, making it important for providers to build a positive relationship with YP prior to leaving care.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4.3. Referral pathways\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile referrals to the Cultural Engagement and Disability Practice Advisor Teams were critical enablers, participants reported a need to increase awareness of their programs and referral pathways. High turnover and caseloads within child protection reduced understanding of referral processes, and late referrals often left insufficient time to complete essential tasks for both cohorts. Enablers included timely referral pathways supported by clear processes, with information sessions increasing staff awareness and prompting earlier referrals, and the co-location of specialist teams with child protection facilitating regular contact and reducing reliance on individual initiative. Access to child protection data also enabled proactive identification of YP with disability, embedding support earlier in transition planning. However, even when data systems flagged YP requiring support, follow-through was described as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ea little bit sporadic\u003c/em\u003e (CS_12),\u0026rdquo; leading to uneven access to supports.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4.4. Relational partnerships\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross cohorts, strong relationships between child protection and residential OoHC providers were also seen as critical. Regular communication, collaboration, keeping YP at the centre of decisions, and openness to specialist input were all identified as enabling factors that strengthened planning and outcomes. For MCMF YP, constructive relationships between child protection and families were described as enablers of cultural planning, with open and honest communication supporting YP to strengthen their identity and cultural connections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.5. Local conditions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants identified three local conditions that shaped the implementation of transition planning: (1) the housing market; (2) availability and appropriateness of programs; and (3) geographical inequities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.5.1. Housing market\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants reported the shortage of safe and suitable housing as a significant barrier to the successful implementation of transition planning. The implications were particularly significant for YP with disability, who were often forced into unsafe, unsuitable, or unwanted options. One participant described a YP with autism and ADHD who was required to accept a house that had been broken into, despite him feeling \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003efrightened\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethere were no other [housing] offers\u003c/em\u003e (CS_21).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEligibility rules compounded these shortages. YP with high-risk behaviours such as substance use or justice involvement were often excluded from housing programs, while those with mild intellectual disability did not meet thresholds for disability-specific accommodation. Financial insecurity also constrained housing stability, with YP in supported accommodation required to contribute most of their Disability Support Pension. One cross-sector participant suggested this was by design as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethere's some [YP] where they're worried about exploitation and family knocking back on the door [for the pension]\u003c/em\u003e (CS_10).\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.5.2. Program availability and appropriateness\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractitioners reflected that residential and transition from OoHC programs (e.g., Better Futures) were \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etrauma-informed\u0026hellip; but not disability-focused\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_12),\u0026rdquo; which limited their suitability for YP with disability needs. Across cohorts, Better Futures was widely valued for extending financial and casework support beyond age 18 years and disability-specific providers were seen as critical enablers. However, participants reported common barriers including high demand, long waitlists, turnover and workforce shortages. These factors limited timely access and undermined YP\u0026rsquo;s participation, as frequent worker changes and lack of relational trust conflicted with YP\u0026rsquo;s preference for continuity with \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eone person and that is it\u003c/em\u003e (CS_05).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndependent living skills programs were described as particularly valuable when delivered in hands-on, youth-friendly group formats that built confidence and practical skills. For MCMF YP, the availability of culturally responsive mental health services and partnerships with cultural organisations were identified as important enablers, helping to ensure services were relevant and accessible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.5.3. Geographical inequities\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported that YP in regional and rural areas faced greater inequities than those in metropolitan areas, due to workforce shortages, high turnover, and limited housing and support options. For YP with disability, access to allied health, specialist hospitals, therapies, and housing was less available in regional areas, sometimes requiring \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ea whole day in the car just to get support\u003c/em\u003e (CS_04).\u0026rdquo; Workforce shortages in specialist services also left many \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;forced to either accept subpar support\u003c/em\u003es (CS_04)\u0026rdquo; or seek services outside the region, which was rarely feasible for YP or staff. For MCMF YP, fewer culturally specific resources outside metropolitan areas, such as community groups, places of worship, and consulates limited opportunities to meet cultural needs during transition planning. Despite these inequalities, an enabler was strong interagency collaboration in some regional areas, where services worked closely to fill gaps and provide greater continuity despite resource constraints.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.6. Available resources - funding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to flexible funding streams was identified as an important enabler of transition planning. Practitioners highlighted the value of Targeted Care Packages, the Transition to Independent Living Allowance, and Home Stretch funding, which subsidised rent, housing establishment costs and additional support hours. For YP with disability, the National Disability Insurance Scheme was also an enabler when plans were resourced in proportion with their needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these supports, participants emphasised that funding was a major barrier. For YP with disability, excessive assessment costs sometimes \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ealmost 10 grand worth\u003c/em\u003e (CS_12),\u0026rdquo; posed barriers to securing National Disability Insurance Scheme packages. The fee-for-service structure also created additional barriers, as meetings with multiple National Disability Insurance Scheme-funded professionals could discourage full participation. Funding instability was also highlighted, as supports \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ecome and then go\u0026hellip;the YP would lose those privileges or support that they needed just because of funding\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_22).\u0026rdquo; Unclear funding obligations between the National Disability Insurance Scheme and child protection created additional barriers and required negotiations about which system was responsible for funding services and at what point. For MCMF YP, the absence of Centrelink at the point of leaving care created a critical funding gap. Without permanent residency or access to payments, significant advocacy by teams was required to secure resources to meet basic needs such as housing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4. Innovation domain\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.1. Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported that transition plans were often inaccessible for YP with disability due to the language and format limiting their usefulness. One practitioner reported that YP \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;can have a copy of it\u0026hellip; depending on whether they have a disability\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_10).\u0026rdquo; The absence of designated domains and prompts to capture disability and MCMF goals and needs reduced suitability. For example, while the plan included an \u0026lsquo;identity\u0026rsquo; domain, staff reported using it inconsistently, with one participant reflecting \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eit\u0026rsquo;s confusing to work out what you put in there\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_19).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBarriers were also evident in the broader transition planning process. Participants pointed to the absence of a clearly defined transition planning program, which contributed to variation in practice. Service design and leaving care housing and support options were also described as unsuitable for YP\u0026rsquo;s needs, with one participant noting that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003enone of our leaving care options are even remotely suitable for those YP [with a disability]\u003c/em\u003e (CS_28).\u0026rdquo; Specific service design barriers included the requirement for YP to abruptly leave residential OoHC and move into a new house and service system with minimal relational continuity and the post-residential OoHC engagement model placing the onus on YP to \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003estep into an adult model\u003c/em\u003e (CS_15)\u0026rdquo; before they were ready. While National Disability Insurance Scheme packages provided additional support, these were often inadequate, with one cross-sector participant noting, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003e[they] get a certain number of hours a week of supports, but it\u0026rsquo;s nowhere near as much as you would get in a residential OoHC setting\u003c/em\u003e (CS_25).\u0026rdquo; Enablers included gradual introductions to new housing and early involvement of workers who could remain engaged beyond age 18 years, however systemic factors often constrained their feasibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.2. Relative advantage\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor YP with disability, transition plans were viewed as less suitable compared to other documents. Two documents developed specifically for disability - the functional capacity assessments and positive behaviour support plans - were seen as more appropriate as they better reflected individual needs and informed tailored decision-making. As one participant explained, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethe majority of our planning comes from functional capacity assessments\u0026hellip; we don\u0026rsquo;t\u0026hellip; tend to refer to the LAC [transition plan] document as much\u003c/em\u003e (CS_25).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor MCMF YP, transition plans were seen as less suitable than cultural support plans, ecomaps, and genograms. These alternatives were more appropriate as they explored identity, family, and community connections in greater depth, were written in first-person and provided directly to YP. The cultural support plan also has domains absent from the transition plan, such as Planning for Independence, Family Identity, and Family Reunification.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShe was born in Iran, but it turns out that the family are Kurdish\u0026hellip; she says things like, well, my dad\u0026rsquo;s best friend was killed for speaking Kurdish. I think that's why we're not allowed to speak Kurdish\u0026hellip; so it's written in her cultural plan that then goes with her.\u003c/em\u003e (CS_14)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnablers were when transition plans were used consistently and embedded within care team processes. In these circumstances, they were considered more appropriate by cross-sector professionals, functioning as a live document that enabled coordinated and continuous planning. In contrast, when completed once and not used to guide continuous planning, transition plans were seen as tokenistic and of limited value.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec40\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.3. Adaptability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA consistent barrier was the lack of adaptability in transition planning due to the uniform age cut-off at 18 years (\u003cem\u003esee Policies \u0026amp; Laws)\u003c/em\u003e. This \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eone size fits all\u003c/em\u003e (CS_03)\u0026rdquo; model reduced its perceived appropriateness for both cohorts, leaving no scope to adjust timelines to individual readiness or to accommodate additional processes. Enablers were when planning was delivered as fluid rather than fixed, with supports adapted to YPs evolving goals and circumstances. Transition planning was seen as more appropriate when staff incorporated culturally relevant information and wrote transition plans in accessible formats, such as Easy Read English.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec41\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.4. Complexity\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTransition planning was consistently described as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003equite complex\u003c/em\u003e (CS_22)\u0026rdquo; particularly for YP with disability due to the assessments and coordination across services, and their capacity to participate in transition planning through standard mechanisms (e.g., care teams). Participants reported that the additional steps to meet YP\u0026rsquo;s disability needs take several months to complete. Supporting YP to develop essential life skills such as budgeting, attending appointments, or managing daily routines was also described as challenging.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor MCMF YP, complexity arose to a lesser degree but still reflected additional cultural needs and staff uncertainty about how to respond. One staff member observed that planning became more complicated when cultural or faith-related considerations were overlooked in earlier stages. Importantly, some participants argued that complexity was not inherent to transition planning but created by systemic and organisational practices, with one participant noting, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eit\u0026rsquo;s not complex, we make it complex\u003c/em\u003e (CS_07).\u0026rdquo; No enablers were reported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec42\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4.5. Evidence-base\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant barrier reported specifically for MCMF YP was their invisibility in the existing evidence-base informing transition planning. Participants noted that the lack of research undermined confidence that transition planning is informed by evidence of what works for this cohort. As one participant reflected: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethere's not much research around the experiences of YP from MCMF backgrounds and their transition from OoHC\u0026hellip;we see that they have particularly unique needs, but they're just not visible within practice and research\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; (CS_15). No enablers were reported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec43\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5. Inner setting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec44\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5.1. Access to knowledge \u0026amp; information\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants reported an absence of training within their organisations to support effective transition planning for both cohorts. While guidelines exist, they were not consistently used, and no clear information was available to adapt planning for either cohort. As emphasised by one participant \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethere is a lack of policy \u0026hellip;that says explicitly this is what's required of practitioners when they're working with children from MCMF backgrounds\u003c/em\u003e (CS_15).\u0026rdquo; In the absence of training, transition planning relied on individual practitioner knowledge, informal peer learning, and team-based information sharing. An informal exchange of updates on programs, policies, and service options was seen as an important enabler to help teams stay informed in a constantly changing service environment. However, reliance on individual initiative meant knowledge was unevenly distributed, and high workforce turnover impacted knowledge loss.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec45\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5.2. Structural characteristics \u0026ndash; work infrastructure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh workloads, workforce shortages, and staff turnover across the system were identified as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ehuge barrier[s]\u003c/em\u003e (CS_14)\u0026rdquo; to transition planning for both cohorts. Participants reported that YP were often \u0026lsquo;unallocated\u0026rsquo; to a child protection practitioner, resulting in a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eno one there to be driving that work\u003c/em\u003e (CS_09).\u0026rdquo; As one participant described, the sector is \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eso, so broken\u0026hellip;there\u0026rsquo;s tens of thousands of vacancies within child protection\u003c/em\u003e (CS_16),\u0026rdquo; which constrained their ability to meet YP\u0026rsquo;s transition planning needs. The impact was compounded for YP requiring long-term, intensive processes where delays risked them leaving care without essential supports.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe residential OoHC model was not seen as conducive to capacity building or gradual preparation for independence, as internal policies often restricted YP\u0026rsquo;s opportunities to develop independence. As one participant reflected, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethere\u0026rsquo;s no independent living skills happening whatsoever\u003c/em\u003e (CS_10).\u0026rdquo; Residential OoHC staff were reported to complete tasks on behalf of YP such as cooking, cleaning, organising appointments, and managing medication and house keys. This was described to lead to inaccurate assessments of independence, affecting disability applications by either overstating or understating their support needs. An important enabler was when staff actively supported YP to take part in daily tasks and gradually increased their autonomy, helping to build the skills and confidence needed for independent living.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec46\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5.3. Relational connections\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequent worker changes undermined trust and reduced YP\u0026rsquo;s willingness to participate in transition planning. Participants explained that without stable, trusting relationships, YP were less likely to feel safe engaging in core processes such as disability assessments or meeting with cultural and specialist teams. Some YP had \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003efive or six different workers\u003c/em\u003e (CS_15)\u0026rdquo; in a year, leading to lack of openness and trust with new workers. This instability not only limited participation in planning but also increased risks of disengagement from OoHC, including seeking connection outside the home leaving them vulnerable to harm. Conversely, participants described how consistent and trusting relationships enabled YP across cohorts to feel safe, supported, and more willing to participate in planning processes, underscoring positive relationships as a critical enabler of implementation. As one participant reported: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWe say, the right support at the right time\u0026hellip;If you\u0026rsquo;ve got that early connection and people [who] know that young person and can build trust\u0026hellip;then we see it works well\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; (CS_08)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec47\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5.4. Culture \u0026ndash; recipient centredness\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants described cultural barriers within the residential OoHC model undermined recipient-centred transition planning. Some staff were perceived as treating the role as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ejust a job\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_11)\u0026rdquo; limiting the relational investment needed to engage YP in meaningful planning. No enablers were reported for this construct.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec48\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.6. Implementation process\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec49\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.6.1. Reflecting \u0026amp; Evaluating\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCross-sector participants reported the absence of mandated data collection on culture as a significant barrier to improving implementation for MCMF YP. This was described as a form of structural \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eracism\u003c/em\u003e (CS_15),\u0026rdquo; and seen to prevent transition planning from being delivered with quality and effectiveness to this cohort. No enablers were reported for this construct.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec50\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.6.2. Engaging Recipients (YP)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractitioners consistently highlighted that engaging YP in transition planning was essential yet challenging. Care team meetings, intended to capture YP\u0026rsquo;s perspectives, were often poorly attended by YP, as they were formal and overwhelming, with one participant reflecting, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI can\u0026rsquo;t imagine any teenager responding well to being talked at and told this is how it\u0026rsquo;s going to happen versus what are your thoughts\u0026hellip; whether you have a disability or not\u003c/em\u003e (CS_07).\u0026rdquo; Barriers for YP with disability included rushed and imposed processes, that demanded immediate participation, even when YP were not ready to participate. In these circumstances, planning was described as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ea waste of time for everyone\u003c/em\u003e (CS_04)\u0026rdquo; as YP were unlikely to utilise the plan without genuine involvement. This in turn undermined their engagement in voluntary processes such as Centrelink applications. Staff noted the need for greater structural support, even though they were \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etrying really hard\u003c/em\u003e (CS_32)\u0026rdquo; to engage YP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunication barriers also limited participation. Planning was not consistently introduced in culturally or disability inclusive ways, with one participant reflecting, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ewe forget that there\u0026rsquo;s a human in the middle of this\u0026hellip; we\u0026rsquo;ve become a little bit robotic\u003c/em\u003e (CS_05).\u0026rdquo; When complex processes such as disability or housing applications were not translated into accessible steps it created barriers to their meaningful participation, with written documents seen as insufficient, particularly for YP who were \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eseverely autistic\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_08).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnablers included youth-friendly care team structures that reduced formality, clarified roles, and created safe spaces by connecting planning to what mattered to YP, such as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003estepping away from clinical stuff\u0026hellip;and tapping into what is it that actually is of interest to them\u003c/em\u003e (CS_08).\u0026rdquo; Visual aids, \u0026lsquo;social stories,\u0026rsquo; and adapted meetings that were kept short and began with YP\u0026rsquo;s input were also used to ensure the voices of YP with disabilities were captured.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor MCMF YP, engagement in cultural support planning was hindered by the multi-service model, where planning was led by unfamiliar staff, reducing willingness to participate. Participation improved when Cultural Engagement Team staff attended alongside trusted residential workers, building rapport and supporting meaningful involvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Strategies to improve the design and delivery of transition planning","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe strategies outlined in this section were identified by all participants, who drew on their practice experience to propose solutions to improve the implementation of transition planning. They emphasise changes to policy, infrastructure, workforce capability, and service design to improve implementation for these cohorts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec52\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Outer setting strategy recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStaff reported strategies centred on overcoming legislative barriers requiring YP in residential OoHC to exit at 18 years, alongside strengthening partnerships and connections and increasing resources across the system. As one participant urged \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;the Australian jurisdiction needs to really consider when YP are moving out of care, are they ready to leave\u003c/em\u003e? \u003cem\u003eDo they have those skills to live independently as adults?\u003c/em\u003e (CS_17)\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommendations to improve outer setting conditions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOuter setting constructs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommendations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicies \u0026amp; laws\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Implement extended care principles in residential OoHC to enable YP to remain in residential or semi-independent housing beyond 18 years where required.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Extend extended care legislation to enable transition from OoHC supports up to 25 years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Mandate the collection of MCMF demographic data at intake and throughout transition planning to both ensure cultural needs are identified and to enable monitoring of implementation and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Introduce accountability mechanisms to ensure cultural and disability needs are met prior to leaving care.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePartnership \u0026amp; connections\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Develop cross-government agreements, between:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eo the National Disability Insurance Agency and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to resolve barriers to smooth housing transitions and funding agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eo Centrelink and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to address barriers to timely income support, including waiting periods and consent to complete applications on YPs behalf.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Enhance referral pathways into the Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement Teams by incorporating program awareness into child protection and OoHC induction processes and supporting relational strategies such as co-location and networking to encourage consistent referrals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Explore technological solutions to promote equitable referrals to the Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement Teams, for example automatic referrals based on age or time care.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Strengthen collaboration and referral pathways with external specialist cultural organisations such as refugee and settlement agencies and culturally responsive mental health services.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Clearly define roles and responsibilities across child protection, residential OoHC staff and care team members.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Appoint a dedicated lead worker who has the remit to drive planning, with transition planning expertise and ability to regularly meet with YP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Improve the care team meeting environment by reducing formality, clarifying roles, and creating disability and culturally safe spaces.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLocal conditions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Invest in diverse housing alternatives for YP with disability who do not qualify for National Disability Insurance Scheme or lead tenant programs, and for those who do not wish to move into disability-specific housing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Invest in resources and capability building among community-led cultural organisations, including government mandated family violence training.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Suggested models included supported share houses with pooled National Disability Insurance Scheme funds and supported housing co-located with residential OoHC units.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Increase investment in life-skills programs that build incremental independence with adequate support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Address regional inequities by investing in telehealth services, priority access, and staff resources to support out-of-area travel.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Increase intersectionality of services, including Better Futures programs that are trained in disability, culture and trauma-responsive practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Increase access to personal advocates for YP with disability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec53\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2. Inner setting strategy recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStaff described strategies focused on building workforce capability and strengthening work infrastructure to enable more relational, culturally responsive, and disability-informed transition planning:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew practitioners just do not know what they need to be doing, and there needs to be a component of it [disability focused transition planning]...I do not know if [current training] includes anything on children with disabilities and the supports that they need\u003c/em\u003e (CS_10).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommendations to improve inner setting conditions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInner setting constructs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommendations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to knowledge and information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; System-wide training and ongoing capability building strategies for residential OoHC and child protection staff to (a) enhance disability knowledge and skills for YP and their families; (b) enhance cultural knowledge and skills for YP and their families; (c) best-practice transition planning for both cohorts, including service system navigation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Training and ongoing capability building strategies for National Disability Insurance Scheme providers in OoHC practices to build shared understanding and practice across systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Enhance accurate cultural information is recorded and updated overtime to prevent recycling of inaccurate cultural information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStructural characteristics \u0026ndash; work infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Reduce child protection caseloads to enable relational practice and timely identification of disability and cultural needs and subsequent assessments and referrals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Enhance the built environment (e.g., homeliness) of residential OoHC units and reduce restrictive policies that prevent YP from incrementally developing independent living skills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Reduce number of YP in residential OoHC homes to promote relational and placement stability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec54\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3. Innovation strategy recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStaff identified a range of strategies to improve the design of transition planning tools and processes to make them more culturally and developmentally appropriate:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA practice to help the child understand what is happening next across the board would be great\u0026hellip;something guided with a bit of therapeutic clinical oversight to how the child is going to process it. That they can read in their own time, but it gives them the answers to the questions or where they can get the answers to their questions\u003c/em\u003e (Mac_10).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommendations to improve innovation-related conditions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovation constructs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommendations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDesign\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Design a standardised transition planning tool that integrates existing high-value components such as social stories, genograms and disability transition plans into one cohesive plan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Design supplementary materials (e.g., a visual journey map) to increase YP\u0026rsquo;s knowledge of the transition planning process, including setting expectations that relationships with carers with change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Apply disability inclusive design principles including Easy Read to ensure transition planning processes are accessible to all YP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Apply culturally inclusive design principles, such as language and cultural needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Adapt service design to prevent YP moving into semi-independent housing until they are ready.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Adapt service design to increase intensity of supports in line developmental capacity rather than age.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Adapt service design to prioritise continuity of relationships rather than transferring services and ending connections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Adaptation is needed for YP entering care later, to ensure necessary supports are in place within limited time limits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Strengthen family reunification and family finding practices through evidence-informed practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelative advantage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Implement a strengths-based goal setting and practice approaches, such as Advantage Thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Refine the Better Futures program to align with developmental readiness and proactively engage YP in help-seeking, with the government\u0026rsquo;s Stronger Futures for Refugee Youth program cited as a positive practice model as they staff are instead pro-active in engaging with YP.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study identified the barriers and enablers to the implementation of transition planning and strategies to strengthen the implementation for YP in residential OoHC with disability and from MCMF backgrounds. It addresses a critical gap in the literature and provides context-specific insights into why transition planning often fails to achieve intended outcomes for these cohorts. While the specific needs of YP across these cohorts differ, this study found shared implementation barriers, including legislation, service design, systemic values, and capability gaps. Enablers such as specialist expertise, adapted practices, and cross-sector partnerships could be bolstered to strengthen implementation (Bartley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Powell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). These findings extend existing research by demonstrating how structural factors shape outcomes for YP leaving care (Glynn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe legislative requirement to leave care at 18 years emerged as the most significant barrier, disproportionately affecting both cohorts. Consistent with previous research, this legislation fostered compliance-focused practice that rushed transition planning, undermined developmental readiness, and reduced YP\u0026rsquo;s choice and agency (CCYP, 2020; McPherson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These conditions have been shown to increase the risk of unsuccessful transitions from care, including homelessness and justice involvement, which are more common among YP with disability (Bengtsson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Munro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The leaving care legislation has been widely critiqued as inequitable compared with broader social norms, as it denies YP the gradual independence and long-term support available to their peers (Bengtsson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al., 2023a; Munro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Donnell et al., 2020). The consequences are significant for YP with disability, where cognitive and biological age often do not align, requiring some YP to exit care without adequate supports - a finding highlighted more than a decade ago (Mendes \u0026amp; Snow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Equity-centred reforms that extend support beyond 18 years and prioritise participation and readiness, rather than age, are therefore essential (Atkinson \u0026amp; Hyde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Gill \u0026amp; Oakley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Prendergast et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Extended care reforms have been introduced across jurisdictions, but their application in residential OoHC is limited (Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e; van Breda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). An analysis of the barriers to introducing extended care reforms align with findings from this study, including stigma that positions care leavers as undeserving of the same opportunities as their peers; limited data collection; and expectations of self-reliance regardless of readiness (Mendes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e; Sims-Schouten et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). However, the advocacy strategies that successfully influenced extended care reforms demonstrate that legislative change is achievable through amplifying the voice of lived experience, media campaigns, lobbying politicians, and generating robust evidence (Mendes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFindings also highlight how intersecting systems shape the feasibility of transition planning. While government guidelines emphasise the importance of cultural connection and specialist disability supports (DFFH, 2012; 2024), our findings extend upon prior research demonstrating these supports were implemented inconsistently in practice (CCYP, 2020; Gullo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes \u0026amp; Snow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Roberts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Reliance on Centrelink, housing, immigration, and the National Disability Insurance Scheme was central to YP\u0026rsquo;s transitions, yet policy differences, eligibility thresholds and funding gaps created barriers gaps that left some YP without essential resources. For example, YP with mild disabilities may were ineligible for disability housing while considered too \u0026lsquo;complex\u0026rsquo; for mainstream services, heightening their risk of homelessness (CCYP, 2020; Roberts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, MCMF YP without permanent residency or with justice involvement faced prolonged waits for income support, increasing vulnerability to exploitation and homelessness (CCYP, 2020; Grage-Moore \u0026amp; Mendes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; van Breda, 2020). Furthermore, for some housing programs, eligibility is contingent on participation in education or training. These conditional pathways reinforce notions of \u0026lsquo;deservingness\u0026rsquo; and exclude those with the greatest needs (Glynn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Roberts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Sims-Schouten et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe capacity of staff to implement transition planning is shaped by conditions in other service systems. When essential resources such as housing, disability programs, or cultural supports are unavailable, the implementation of transition planning is constrained (Authors et al., 2025). Effective implementation depends on cross-sector alignment to avoid leaving YP to navigate these gaps alone (Havlicek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Strengthening collaboration between OoHC and National Disability Insurance Scheme providers is needed improve timely access to disability and allied health professionals across geographic areas (Annakin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Blair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Caines et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Gatwiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Munro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Enablers identified in this study, including co-location, accountability processes, information sharing and referral pathway knowledge, illustrate practical mechanisms for improving cross-sector partnerships. Building on these enablers requires service systems that mirror relational approaches, with organisational and structural conditions that give staff the time and remit to prioritise relationships with YP, and each other (Bartley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Partnerships should focus on reciprocity, shared funding, and seamless pathways, ensuring that neither practitioners nor YP encounter fragmented service boundaries. These strategies align with child welfare research that emphasises inter-organisational collaboration is critical to successful implementation (Akin., 2016; Bunger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Gill \u0026amp; Oakley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Grant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Prendergast et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Winters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Transition planning could therefore be strengthened by adopting evidence-informed implementation science strategies, including network weaving and formalised agreements to bolster relationships and accountability (Albers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Bartley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Powell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Investing in these strategies, alongside scaling specialist disability and cultural teams, may create the structural conditions needed for staff to equitably implement transition planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEffective implementation also depends on the capability of the workforce. Consistent with earlier findings from the CCYP (2020), staff have limited training and access to practical information needed to deliver best-practice transition planning for both cohorts. Reciprocal knowledge gaps within intersecting systems, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, created additional capability barriers due to a lack of understanding of the OoHC context and trauma-responsive practice (Annakin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; CCYP, 2020). Additionally, an important opportunity identified was the need to strengthen staff capability to adequately engage YP in the planning process. Unsuccessful transitions from OoHC were commonly attributed to YP\u0026rsquo;s perceived \u0026lsquo;complexity\u0026rsquo; or lack of engagement, rather than to limitations in the planning process. This reflects broader research showing that poor outcomes for YP in OoHC are justified due to their \u0026lsquo;complexity\u0026rsquo; and are explained as individual accountability rather than systemic responsibility (Sims-Schouten et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). While practitioners made consistent efforts to involve YP, the study identified a need for additional knowledge and tools to support staff to effectively build and maintain YP\u0026rsquo;s willingness to participate. As Bengtsson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) emphasised, YP who are less \u0026lsquo;engaged\u0026rsquo; require different approaches, as they are often the most vulnerable in their transition from OoHC. Strengthening cross-sector workforce capability designed to meet the most \u0026lsquo;complex\u0026rsquo; needs can enable inclusive approaches that benefit all YP (Lee \u0026amp; Wolf-Branigin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile existing guidelines provide broad direction, they require updating to offer accessible information and practice guidance on \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e to deliver transition planning practices, not just \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e to deliver (Green et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, guidelines alone are insufficient to implement practice changes (Pereira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Staff recommended ongoing capability building strategies for all staff and service systems involved in transition planning to build consistent knowledge of how to operationalise core transition planning practices (Okland \u0026amp; Oterholm, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Key capability building needs among the OoHC workforce include strengthening cultural competency, including topics of service system navigation and supporting diverse cultural needs such as language, community, faith, refugee history and experiences of racism and stigma (Bates et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Grace et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Gullo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Hoare, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Implementation science research highlights that training is most effective when embedded within broader strategies such as coaching and reflective supervision (Albers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Akin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Powell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Schelbe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Weeks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Specialist roles such as the Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement teams provide a strong foundation for building workforce capability. Their expertise could be leveraged to co-design capability-building strategies, which would both strengthen practice and increase awareness of their functions, improving referral pathways. Additionally, capability building strategies should be delivered by, or in partnership with, YP from lived experience advocacy groups. To achieve this, these teams require sustainable resourcing, ensuring their knowledge can be embedded across OoHC and intersecting systems to support consistent, equitable implementation of transition planning (Bartley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh caseloads, turnover, and workforce shortages undermined continuity and relational practice. These conditions limited time for timely referrals, life skills development, and cultural engagement, echoing prior findings that workload pressures weaken relational practice in child welfare (Agner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Albers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Engell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Donnell et al., 2020). Research has shown these conditions compromise cultural planning (Grace et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) and disrupt sense of belonging, security and stability for YP with disability (Gatwiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Effective implementation therefore requires organisational conditions that provide manageable caseloads, sufficient time, and resources to balance transition planning with daily responsibilities (Gopalan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Green et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Workforce wellbeing is also essential. Evidence that residential OoHC staff report higher rates of adverse childhood experiences than the general population underscores the need for supports that mitigate burnout and secondary trauma (Milne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While workforce retention is a sector priority (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, 2025; DFFH, 2021), additional strategies that strengthen morale, reduce stress, and build resilience are critical to create the stability required for consistent and effective transition planning (Agner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Engell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Riemersma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlongside these workforce factors, the design of transition planning itself was identified as a barrier. While the intent is positive, current practices often fail to meet the needs of YP with disability and those from MCMF backgrounds. Adapted practices delivered by Disability Practice Advisor and Cultural Engagement teams demonstrate that tailored, inclusive planning is possible, but these practices are applied inconsistently in practice across mainstream OoHC providers, transition from OoHC services and child protection. These approaches should be documented and integrated into all roles to ensure all YP with disability and from MCMF backgrounds receive high quality transition planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBarriers arose from both transition plan documentation and broader service design which required YP to enter adult systems such as Better Futures and housing programs at 18 years, often without the continuation of trusted relationships. This emphasis on premature autonomy and self-sufficiency increases risks of homelessness, poverty, and social isolation, in part, due to a lack of ongoing trusted relationships (Boman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Field et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Glynn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Donnell et al., 2020). International reforms show that alternative models centred on relational continuity and flexible timelines are more appropriate and feasible to implement and should be considered in the Australian context (Mendes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; McGhee \u0026amp; Deeley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; van Breda, 2020). Moreover, in the absence of a transition planning service design that prioritises interdependence and sustained relationships, family finding and reunification are crucial, as family engagement fosters identity, culture and access to long-term support (Herbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; MacDonald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Addressing design barriers and embedding inclusive, relational, and developmentally aligned practices may enhance the successful implementation of transition planning for YP with disability and those from MCMF backgrounds (Agner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Schmitt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the collection of cultural identity during transition planning was identified as a strategy to ensure transition planning can be effectively adapted for MCMF YP, as the absence of cultural data undermines the ability of services to respond to cultural needs (Grace et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Participants also recommended strengthening the fit and feasibility of transition planning by replacing existing plans with disability and culturally appropriate alternatives. Applying inclusive design principles to adapting transition planning processes and materials will ensure the design is appropriate for YP of all physical and cognitive abilities (Ferreira et al., 2024; Klaus et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Persson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Ruble et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This could include developing alternatives to written documents such as audio and visual alternatives, and transition plans that can be translated into language of choice. These recommendations align with implementation science research, which highlights the importance of adapting practices to diverse cultures and needs, and discontinuing practices that do not meet intended outcomes (Olsson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Powell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Turner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Walsh-Bailey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Weeks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec56\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Strengths and limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the implementation of transition planning for YP with disability and those from MCMF backgrounds, drawing on perspectives from staff across residential OoHC, child protection, and specialist cross-sector teams.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe qualitative design provided rich, context-specific insights into an underexplored area, addressing the gap that these cohorts are often under-represented in research despite being over-represented in residential OoHC (Lim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, this focus also limits the generalisability of findings to the broader population of care-experienced YP. To address this, complementary publications are underway: one examines transition planning across all YP, and another explores barriers and enablers to implementing education and employment supports as a core component of transition planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditional limitations relate to participant representation. Perspectives of residential OoHC staff were drawn from a single service provider, and only 8.3% of participants worked directly in the home with YP. While staff outside the home are primarily responsible for formal transition planning processes, staff in the home often hold the closest relationships with YP and provide unique insight into day-to-day implementation (Authors et al., 2025). Additionally, this study recruited staff only, of whom 5% had a lived experience of OoHC. This limitation has been addressed in a follow up study that explores YP\u0026rsquo;s perspectives of transition planning. Finally, self-selection bias is possible, as staff with strong views about the challenges of transition planning may have been motivated to participate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides new knowledge to improve the implementation of transition planning in residential OoHC for YP with disability and from MCMF backgrounds. We identified barriers and enablers across all CFIR domains: outer setting (6 factors, e.g., legislation), inner setting (4 factors, e.g., access to knowledge and information), characteristics of individuals (3 factors, e.g., capability), innovation (5 factors, e.g., complexity), and implementation process (2 factors, e.g., engaging YP). Participants\u0026rsquo; recommendations are aimed at improving the fit of transition planning service design with YP\u0026rsquo;s needs and the service system context, addressing policy and legislative barriers, and enhancing capability across the sector. These findings provide an evidence-base for governments and residential OoHC providers to develop evidence-informed implementation strategies that strengthen transition planning for these cohorts. Moving from the \u0026lsquo;what\u0026rsquo; to the \u0026lsquo;how\u0026rsquo; is essential to enable transition planning to achieve its intended outcomes for YP leaving residential OoHC.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAuthors have no competing interests to declare.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis study was funded by\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMacKillop Family Services Industry Partner PhD. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The data generated and/or analysed during this study are not publicly available due to their sensitive nature and the lack of participant consent for data sharing. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSarah Morris for contributing to the interview guide. MacKillop Family Services for enabling and facilitating recruitment of their staff and the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing for enabling and facilitating recruitment of cross-sector practitioners.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH.W designed and implemented the study including conducting all data collection, transcription, coding, analysis and wrote all manuscript text and tables.H.S supported study conceptualisation and critically reviewed manuscript drafts.E.G supported co-coding and critically reviewed manucript drafts.M.S supported co-coding and critically reviewed manuscript drafts.R.S supported co-coding and critically reviewed mansucript drafts.H.M supported study conceptualisation and critically reviewed manuscript drafts.All authors reviewed the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgner, J., Barile, J. P., Chandler, S. M., \u0026amp; Berry, M. (2020). Innovation in child welfare: Factors affecting adoption of empirically supported interventions. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105580\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkin, B. A. (2016). Practitioner views on the core functions of coaching in the implementation of an evidence-based intervention in child welfare. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 68, 159-168. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.07.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlbers, B., Metz, A., Burke, K., B\u0026uuml;hrmann, L., Bartley, L., Driessen, P., \u0026amp; Varsi, C. (2020). Implementation support skills: findings from a systematic integrative review. \u003cem\u003eResearch on Social Work Practice\u003c/em\u003e, 31(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731520967419\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnnakin, L., Harris, L. G., \u0026amp; Higgins, D. J. (2025). Barriers to mental-health support and services for children and young people in out-of-home care: The Children in Care Collective\u0026rsquo;s audit findings.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtkinson, C., \u0026amp; Hyde, R. (2019). Care leavers\u0026rsquo; views about transition: a literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Children\u0026apos;s Services\u003c/em\u003e, 14(1), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-05-2018-0013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtwool, N. (2020). Transition from care: Are we continuing to set care leavers up to fail in New Zealand? \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104995\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Young people in out-of-home care. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/young-people\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022). Child protection Australia 2020\u0026ndash;21. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/child-protection-australia-2020-21\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBartley, L., Metz, A., \u0026amp; Fleming, W. O. (2022). What implementation strategies are relational? Using Relational Theory to explore the ERIC implementation strategies. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Health Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 913585.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBates, S., Kayess, R., Laurens, E. J., \u0026amp; Katz, I. (2024). The importance of supporting evolving capacity: The need to support young people with cognitive impairment in out-of-home-care. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 156\u003c/em\u003e, Article 107315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107315 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBengtsson, M., Sj\u0026ouml;blom, Y., \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;berg, P. (2020). Transitional patterns when leaving care \u0026ndash; Care leavers\u0026rsquo; agency in a longitudinal perspective. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 118\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105486 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlair, C., Leonard, R., Linden, M., Teggart, T., \u0026amp; Mooney, S. (2024). Allied health professional support for children and young adults living in and leaving care: A systematic scoping review. \u003cem\u003eChild: Care, Health and Development\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 50\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.13140 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoman, M. (2025). Relationships and Identity: An ethnographic study with young people in south‐east Queensland who had left out‐of‐home care. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70021 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 18(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBunger, A. C., Chuang, E., Girth, A. M., Lancaster, K. E., Smith, R., Phillips, R. J., Martin, J., Gadel, F., Willauer, T., Himmeger, M. J., Millisor, J., McClellan, J., Powell, B. J., Saldana, L., \u0026amp; Aarons, G. A. (2024). Specifying cross-system collaboration strategies for implementation: a multi-site qualitative study with child welfare and behavioral health organizations. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e, 19(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01335-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButterworth, S., Singh, S. P., Birchwood, M., Islam, Z., Munro, E. R., Vostanis, P., ... \u0026amp; Simkiss, D. (2017). Transitioning care‐leavers with mental health needs:\u0026lsquo;they set you up to fail!\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo; Child and Adolescent Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, 22(3), 138-147.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaines, S., Congues, J., Costigan, L., Robinson, N., Grace, C., Franklin, L., \u0026amp; Argus, A. (2025). Bridging the gap: Social work practice challenges navigating support for families with disabilities. \u003cem\u003eChildren Australia\u003c/em\u003e, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.61605/cha_3043\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare. (2025, May 5). Residential Care Learning and Development Strategy (RCLDS). https://cfecfw.org.au/learning-development/residential-care-learning-and-development-strategy-rclds/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentre for Relational Care. (2025). ISS article. Centre for Relational Care. https://www.centreforrelationalcare.org.au/iss-article\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChikwava, F., O\u0026apos;Donnell, M., Ferrante, A., Pakpahan, E., \u0026amp; Cordier, R. (2022). Patterns of homelessness and housing instability and the relationship with mental health disorders among young people transitioning from out-of-home care: Retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e, 17(9), e0274196.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClegg, J., Crawford, E., Spencer, S., \u0026amp; Matthews, D. (2021). Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) in young people leaving care in England: A study profiling the language, literacy and communication abilities of young people transitioning from care to independence. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 18(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084107\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCommission for Children and Young People. (2020). Keep caring: Systemic inquiry into services for young people transitioning from out-of-home care (Melbourne: Commission for Children and Young People, 2020). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCruz, D., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Alba, L., \u0026amp; del Valle, J. F. (2025). Helping care leavers develop life skills: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108298\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDamschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., \u0026amp; Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDepartment of Families, Fairness and Housing. (2012). \u003cem\u003eCare and transition planning for leaving care framework\u003c/em\u003e. https://providers.dffh.vic.gov.au/care-and-transition-planning-leaving-care-framework-word \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDepartment of Families, Fairness and Housing. (2021). \u003cem\u003eChild protection workforce strategy 2021\u0026ndash;2024\u003c/em\u003e. Victorian Government, Department of Families, Fairness and Housing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDepartment of Families, Fairness and Housing. (2024). \u003cem\u003eLeaving care\u003c/em\u003e. https://services.dffh.vic.gov.au/leaving-care \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEngell, T., Kirk\u0026oslash;en, B., Aarons, G. A., \u0026amp; Hagen, K. A. (2020). Individual level predictors of implementation climate in child welfare services. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105509\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerreira, R. D. S., \u0026amp; Castro, T. H. C. D. (2024). Participatory and inclusive design models from the perspective of universal design for children with autism: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(6), 613.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eField, A., Sen, R., Johnston, C., \u0026amp; Ellis, K. (2021). Turning 18 in specialised residential therapeutic care: Independence or a cliff edge? \u003cem\u003eChildren \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, 35(5), 784-798. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12450\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFurey, R., \u0026amp; Harris‐Evans, J. (2021). Work and resilience: Care leavers\u0026apos; experiences of navigating towards employment and independence. \u003cem\u003eChild \u0026amp; Family Social Work\u003c/em\u003e, 26(3), 404-414. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12822 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGatwiri, K., McPherson, L., \u0026amp; James, S. (2024). Experiences of Children and young people with a Disability in Out‐of‐Home Care in Australia: A Scoping Review\u003cem\u003e. Health \u0026amp; social care in the community\u003c/em\u003e, 2024(1), 3456823.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGill A., \u0026amp; Oakley G. (2018). Agency workers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of cross-system collaboration to support students in out-of-home care.\u003cem\u003e Children Australia\u003c/em\u003e, 43(1), 2106. doi.org/10.1017/cha.2018.1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlynn, N. (2021). Understanding care leavers as youth in society: A theoretical framework for studying the transition out of care. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105829\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGopalan, G., Lee, K. A., Pisciotta, C., Hooley, C., Stephens, T., \u0026amp; Acri, M. (2023). Implementing a child mental health intervention in child welfare services: Stakeholder perspectives on feasibility. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, 31(3), 204-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266221120532 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoulet, J., Maltais, C., Archambault, I., No\u0026euml;l, V., \u0026amp; Gu\u0026eacute;riton, M. (2024). Supporting academic achievement of children in out-of-home care through effective interventions: results of a systematic review and meta-analyses. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107388 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrace, R., Mitchell, M., Wright, A. C., Karatasas, K., Hadley, F., Ravulo, J., Blythe, S., Ezekwem-Obi, A., \u0026amp; Waniganayake, M. (2025). The right to cultural connection for children in out-of-home care: Does Australian policy and practice adequately support cultural identity for culturally and linguistically diverse children? \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrage-Moore, S., \u0026amp; Mendes, P. (2023). What are the factors that influence outcomes for unaccompanied humanitarian refugee minors leaving out-of-home care in Australia. Social Work \u0026amp; Policy Studies: \u003cem\u003eSocial Justice, Practice and Theory\u003c/em\u003e, 6(1), 1-24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrage-Moore, S., Wainwright, H., Newton, D., Mendes, P., \u0026amp; Skouteris, H. (2025). Factors enabling smooth transitions from out-of-home care: A scoping review.\u003cem\u003e Children Australia\u003c/em\u003e, 47(1), 3026. doi.org/10.61605/cha_3026 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrant, A., Kontak, J., Jeffers, E., Lawson, B., MacKenzie, A., Burge, F., Boulos, L., Lackie, K., Marshall, E. G., Mireault, A., Philpott, S., Sampalli, T., Sheppard-LeMoine, D., \u0026amp; Martin-Misener, R. (2024). Barriers and enablers to implementing interprofessional primary care teams: a narrative review of the literature using the consolidated framework for implementation research. \u003cem\u003eBMC Prim Care\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02240-0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen, R., Bruce, L., O\u0026rsquo;Donnell, R., Quarmby, T., Hatzikiriakidis, K., Strickland, D., \u0026amp; Skouteris, H. (2021). \u0026ldquo;We\u0026rsquo;re Trying so Hard for Outcomes but at the Same Time We\u0026rsquo;re Not Doing Enough\u0026rdquo;: Barriers to Physical Activity for Australian Young People in Residential Out-of-home Care. \u003cem\u003eChild Care in Practice\u003c/em\u003e, 28(4), 739-757. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2021.1895076 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGullo, F., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Alba, L., Santos, I., \u0026amp; del Valle, J. F. (2025). Is Anyone There? In Social Support of Young People in and after Residential Care: Is Someone There for You? (pp. 247-267). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003424468-18\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarder, A. T., Mann-Feder, V., Oterholm, I., \u0026amp; Refaeli, T. (2020). Supporting transitions to adulthood for youth leaving care: Consensus based principles. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105260\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, L. G., Higgins, D. J., Willis, M. L., Lawrence, D., Mathews, B., Thomas, H. J., Malacova, E., Pacella, R., Scott, J. G., Finkelhor, D., Meinck, F., Erskine, H. E., \u0026amp; Haslam, D. M. (2025). The Prevalence and Patterns of Maltreatment, Childhood Adversity, and Mental Health Disorders in an Australian Out-Of-Home Care Sample. \u003cem\u003eChild Maltreatment\u003c/em\u003e, 30(1), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595241246534\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHavlicek, J., Bilaver, L., \u0026amp; Beldon, M. (2016). Barriers and facilitators of the transition to adulthood for foster youth with autism spectrum disorder: Perspectives of service providers in Illinois. \u003cem\u003eChildren \u0026amp; Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 60, 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.025\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerbell, K., McNamara, P., Cresswell, C., Price, M., Sweeney, M., \u0026amp; Bellonci, C. (2024). Are we practicing what we preach? Family partnership in therapeutic residential care for children and youth. \u003cem\u003eResidential treatment for children \u0026amp; youth\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoare, R. (2022). Using composite case material to develop trauma-informed psychoeducation for social care workers looking after unaccompanied minors in residential care in Ireland. \u003cem\u003eHealth and Social Care in the Community\u003c/em\u003e, 30(6), e5863-e5874. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.14017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJedwab, M., Xu, Y., Keyser, D., \u0026amp; Shaw, T. V. (2019). Children and youth in out-of-home care: What can predict an initial change in placement? \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse and Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, 93, 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.04.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlaus, P., Edwards, K., Norvik, D., Manthiou, A., \u0026amp; Luong, V. H. (2024). Inclusive servicescapes: the imperative of universal design principles. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Services Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1089-1098.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKor, K., Fernandez, E., \u0026amp; Spangaro, J. (2023). Placement Matching of Children and Young People within Out-of-Home Residential Care: A Qualitative Analysis. \u003cem\u003eHealth and Social Care in the Community\u003c/em\u003e, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7431351\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J. A., \u0026amp; Wolf‐Branigin, M. (2023). Generating inclusive services for children, youth, and families: A shift to using complex systems theory. \u003cem\u003eChild \u0026amp; Family Social Work\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 897-907. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.13010 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLim, W. M. (2024). What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines. \u003cem\u003eAustralasian Marketing Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 199-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacDonald, M., Oterholm, I., Kelly, B., H\u0026ouml;jer, I., \u0026amp; Bennwik, I. H. B. (2025). Exploring the Meaning and Experience of Family for Youth Leaving Care: A Scoping Review. \u003cem\u003eChild \u0026amp; Family Social Work\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcGhee, K., \u0026amp; Deeley, S. (2022). Emerging Adulthood: Exploring the implications for care experienced young people and those who care for them. Scottish Journal of \u003cem\u003eResidential Child Care\u003c/em\u003e, 21\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcMahon, T., Mortimer, P., Karatasas, K., Asif, N., Delfabbro, P., Cashmore, J., \u0026amp; Taylor, A. (2021). Culturally Diverse Children in Out-of-Home Care: Safety, Wellbeing, Cultural and Family Connections. Pathways of Care Longitudinal Study: Outcomes of Children and Young People in Out-of-Home Care. Research Report Number 20. Sydney. NSW Department of Department of Communities and Justice.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcPherson, L., Vosz, M., Gatwiri, K., Parmenter, N., Macnamara, N., Mitchell, J., \u0026amp; Tucci, J. (2021). What does research tell us about young people\u0026rsquo;s participation in decision making in residential care? A systematic scoping review. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105899\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendes, P. (2023a). \u0026ldquo;The most significant child welfare reform in a generation\u0026rdquo;: An examination of the strategies used by the Home Stretch campaign. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.288\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendes, P., \u0026amp; Snow, P. (2014). The needs and experiences of young people with a disability transitioning from out-of-home care: The views of practitioners in Victoria, Australia. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 36, 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendes, P., Bollinger, J., \u0026amp; Flynn, C. (2023b). Young People Transitioning from Residential out-of-home Care in Australia: The Case for Extended Care. \u003cem\u003eResidential Treatment for Children \u0026amp; Youth\u003c/em\u003e, 40(3), 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571x.2022.2139330\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendes, P., Martin, R., Jasmin Jau, M., \u0026amp; Jacinta Chavulak, M. (2023c). An analysis of the intersecting factors and needs that informed the experiences of young people transitioning from out of home care in the Australian states of Victoria and Western Australia. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106949\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendes, P., Roche, S., Kristo, I., O\u0026apos;Donnell, M., Moore, T., Malvaso, C., Venables, J., \u0026amp; McDowall, J. (2025). The Introduction of Extended Out‐of‐Home Care (OOHC) Until 21\u0026thinsp;Years in Australia: A Mapping of Policy, Legislation and Programs in Each Jurisdiction. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.389\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilne, L., Ratushniak, A., \u0026amp; Nguyen, H. (2024). How adverse childhood experiences impact the professional quality of life of residential care workers: resilience as a mediator for burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and compassion satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 3, 1423451. https://doi.org/10.3389/frcha.2024.1423451\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMunro, E., Friel, S., Baker, C., Lynch, A., Walker, K., Williams, J., ... \u0026amp; Chater, A. M. (2022). CCTC final report: care leavers\u0026apos; transitions to adulthood in the context of COVID-19. University of Bedfordshire.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNilsen, P., \u0026amp; Bernhardsson, S. (2019). Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. \u003cem\u003eBMC Health Services Research\u003c/em\u003e, 19(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Donnell, R., Macrae, A., Savaglio, M., Vicary, D., Green, R., Mendes, P., Kerridge, G., Currie, G., Diamond, S., \u0026amp; Skouteris, H. (2020). \u0026apos;It was daunting. i was 18 and i left residential care and there was no support whatsoever\u0026apos;: A scoping study into the transition from out-of-home-care process in Tasmania, Australia. \u003cem\u003eChildren Australia\u003c/em\u003e, 45(4), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2020.54\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkland, I., \u0026amp; Oterholm, I. (2022). Strengthening supportive networks for care leavers: A scoping review of social support interventions in child welfare services. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e138\u003c/em\u003e, 106502.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlsson, T. M., Blakeslee, J., Bergstr\u0026ouml;m, M., \u0026amp; Skoog, T. (2020). Exploring fit for the cultural adaptation of a self-determination model for youth transitioning from out-of-home care: A comparison of a sample of Swedish youth with two samples of American youth in out-of-home care. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105484\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., \u0026amp; Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. \u003cem\u003eAdministration and Policy in Mental\u003c/em\u003e, 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePereira, V. C., Silva, S. N., Carvalho, V. K., Zanghelini, F., \u0026amp; Barreto, J. O. (2022). Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eHealth research policy and systems\u003c/em\u003e, 20(1), 13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePersson, H., \u0026Aring;hman, H., Yngling, A. A., \u0026amp; Gulliksen, J. (2015). Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts\u0026mdash;one goal? On the concept of accessibility - historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. \u003cem\u003eUniversal access in the information society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 505-526.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePowell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., Proctor, E. K., \u0026amp; Kirchner, J. E. (2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e, 10, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrendergast, L., Davies, C., Seddon, D., Hartfiel, N., \u0026amp; Edwards, R. T. (2024). Barriers and enablers to care-leavers engagement with multi-agency support: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107501\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurtell, J., Mendes, P., Saunders, B. J., \u0026amp; Baidawi, S. (2022). Healing Trauma and Loss and Increasing Social Connections: Transitions from Care and Early Parenting. \u003cem\u003eChild and Adolescent Social Work Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 39\u003c/em\u003e(6), 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00860-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReardon, C. M., Damschroder, L. J., Ashcraft, L. E., Kerins, C., Bachrach, R. L., Nevedal, A. L., Domlyn, A. M., Dodge, J., Chinman, M., \u0026amp; Rogal, S. (2025). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) User Guide: a five-step guide for conducting implementation research using the framework. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-025-01450-7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRiemersma, Y., Harder, A., Zijlstra, E., Post, W., \u0026amp; Kalverboer, M. (2023). Static and dynamic factors underlying placement instability in residential youth care: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e155\u003c/em\u003e, 107298.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoberts, H., Ingold, A., Liabo, K., Manzotti, G., Reeves, D., \u0026amp; Bradby, H. (2018). Moving on: Transitions out of care for young people with learning disabilities in England and Sweden. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Learning Disabilities\u003c/em\u003e, 46(1), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12211\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuble, L., McGrew, J. H., Snell-Rood, C., Adams, M., \u0026amp; Kleinert, H. (2019). Adapting COMPASS for youth with ASD to improve transition outcomes using implementation science. \u003cem\u003eJournal of School Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000281 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchelbe, L., Wilson, D. L., Fickler, W., Williams-Mbengue, N., \u0026amp; Klika, J. B. (2020). Bridging the Gaps Among Research, Policy, and Practice in the Field of Child Maltreatment Through Cross-Sector Training and Innovation. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy, and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, 3(3), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-020-00054-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmitt, M., Hawkins, M., \u0026amp; Florsheim, P. (2025). Key determinants in implementation processes: a systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science Communications\u003c/em\u003e, 6(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00712-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSims-Schouten, W., Skinner, A., \u0026amp; Rivett, K. (2019). Child safeguarding practices in light of the Deserving/Undeserving paradigm: A historical \u0026amp; contemporary analysis. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 94\u003c/em\u003e, 104025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104025 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStor\u0026oslash;, J. (2018). To manage on one\u0026rsquo;s own after leaving care? A discussion of the concepts independence versus interdependence. \u003cem\u003eNordic Social Work Research\u003c/em\u003e, 8(sup1), 104-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857x.2018.1463282\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStubbs, A., Baidawi, S., \u0026amp; Mendes, P. (2023). Young people transitioning from out-of-home care: their experience of informal support. A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106735\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThoburn, J. (2016). Residential care as a permanence option for young people needing longer-term care. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e, 19-28. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTong, A., Sainsbury, P., \u0026amp; Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 19\u003c/em\u003e, 349\u0026ndash;357. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurner, R., Vira, E. G., Bergstr\u0026ouml;m, M., \u0026amp; Olsson, T. M. (2022). Cultural Adaptation of Interventions and the \u003cem\u003ea Priori\u003c/em\u003e Assessment of Intervention Fit: Exploring Measurement Invariance for American and Swedish Youth Leaving Care. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Evidence-Based Social Work\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 306\u0026ndash;322. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2022.2159602\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Breda, A. D., Munro, E. R., Gilligan, R., Anghel, R., Harder, A., Incarnato, M., Mann-Feder, V., Refaeli, T., Stohler, R., \u0026amp; Stor\u0026oslash;, J. (2020). Extended care: Global dialogue on policy, practice and research. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 119\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105596 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWainwright, H., Skouteris, H., Melder, A., Morris, S., Halfpenny, N., Morris, H. (2025). Exploration phase: Improving transition planning in residential out-of-home care. \u003cem\u003eChildren Australia\u003c/em\u003e. 47(3). https://doi.org/10.61605/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalsh-Bailey, C., Tsai, E., Tabak, R. G., Morshed, A. B., Norton, W. E., McKay, V. R., ... \u0026amp; Gifford, S. (2021). A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e, 16(1), 100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeeks, A. (2021). Important Factors for Evidence-Based Implementation in Child Welfare Settings: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Evidence Based Social Work\u003c/em\u003e (2019), 18(2), 129-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2020.1807433\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWinters, A. M., Collins-Camargo, C., Antle, B. F., \u0026amp; Verbist, A. N. (2020). Implementation of system-wide change in child welfare and behavioral health: The role of capacity, collaboration, and readiness for change. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104580\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao, Y., \u0026amp; Waugh, J. (2025). Homelessness and Housing Instability Among Care Leavers in Australia: Exploring Housing Pathways and Best Practice Housing Models. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.392\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7662046/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7662046/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e Transition planning is mandated to support young people (YP) in residential out-of-home care (OoHC) to prepare them for independent living by age 18. Yet, it often falls short of meeting YP\u0026rsquo;s developmental and material needs, particularly for overrepresented cohorts with additional and intersecting needs. Two such cohorts are those living with disability and those from multicultural and multifaith (MCMF) backgrounds. The overall aim of this study was to generate knowledge to support the successful implementation of transition planning for these two cohorts of YP. The specific aims were to identify a) barriers and enablers that prevent or facilitate successful implementation; and b) strategies that improve the design and delivery of transition planning. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with staff (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;60) involved in supporting YP leaving residential OoHC in Victoria. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive approaches guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We identified barriers and enablers across all CFIR domains: outer setting (6 factors, e.g., legislation), inner setting (4 factors, e.g., access to knowledge), characteristics of individuals (3 factors, e.g., capability), innovation (5 factors, e.g., complexity), and implementation process (2 factors, e.g., engaging YP). Recommended strategies to improve the design and delivery of transition planning for YP with disability and from MCMF backgrounds included practice adaptations, legislative reform, cross-government agreements, and workforce capability building.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Implementation Determinants of Transition Planning in Residential Out-of-Home Care for Young People with Disability and from Multicultural and Multifaith Backgrounds","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-09 11:12:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7662046/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4e00f748-8704-4f51-b6c7-443865fef4f5","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-24T19:56:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7662046","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-025-01078-y","journal":{"identity":"child-and-adolescent-social-work-journal","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-23 00:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 23rd, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-09 11:12:52","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10560-025-01078-y","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-025-01078-y","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7662046","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7662046","identity":"rs-7662046","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}