Assessing the Effectiveness of the D.R.E.A.M. Program: Fostering Resilience and Life Skills in Vulnerable Adolescents in Bogotá, Colombia

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16795491 | PDF 

Educazione Aperta 18/2025

This study presents an in-depth analysis of the D.R.E.A.M. (Developing Resilience and Empowering Adaptive Minds) program, an initiative aimed at enhancing life skills and resilience among adolescents. The intervention followed a quasi-experimental design, involving 20 adolescents in an experimental group and 18 in a control group, all from marginalized communities in Bogotá, Colombia. Quantitative data were collected through validated self-assessment scales measuring resilience (Notario-Pacheco et al., 2011), emotion regulation (Gross and John, 2003), and self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1989). Although quantitative results did not demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the experimental group compared to the control group, qualitative insights revealed positive trends in self-awareness, emotional expression, and personal goal-setting. The findings highlight the challenges and opportunities of implementing psychosocial programs in fragile socio-economic environments. They emphasize the need for holistic, culturally sensitive approaches that engage not only adolescents but also their families, schools, and broader communities.

Keywords: Adolescents, Vulnerability, Resilience, Empowerment, Life Skills.

1. Introduction

Adolescence is a critical stage of development, during which individuals refine their identity, regulate emotions, and establish social relationships (Backes and Bonnie, 2019). However, in contexts marked by economic hardship, social instability, and violence, these processes are often disrupted, increasing vulnerability and psychological distress (Kiely et al., 2015; Farah et al., 2006; Duncan et al., 2010).

In Colombia, deep socio-economic disparities and a history of armed conflict (Santos et al., 2023) create particularly challenging conditions for adolescent development. Many young people grow up facing limited educational and economic opportunities, family instability, and community violence (Human Rights Watch, 2023). The family environment is frequently one of the most violent contexts for children (Brook et al., 2003), contributing to widespread symptoms of complex trauma (Ford, 2017). These experiences often impair social integration, emotional attachment, adaptability, and increase stress and anxiety (Lahousen, 2019; Lawson and Quinn, 2013).

In response, Cifa Ets[1], an NGO based in Turin, Italy, launched “Their Tomorrow”, a project offering psychological and social support to vulnerable minors in Colombia, especially those in foster care or living in poverty and violence.

This paper[2] focuses on the D.R.E.A.M. Program (Developing Resilience and Empowering Adaptive Minds), implemented in 2024 as part of the “Their Tomorrow” project in the Usaquén neighborhood of Bogotá, an area marked by high violence and multidimensional poverty (Carreño, 2022; Alta Consejería para los Derechos de las Víctimas, la Paz y la Reconciliación, 2019). Designed by Giuseppe Pedron — counselor, coach and teacher of human skills for adolescents, with a specialization in stress management and well-being — and implemented by Cifa, the D.R.E.A.M. program is part of a broader international initiative funded under the CAI-2022 framework[3] and piloted in five countries: Colombia, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Senegal, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Local multidisciplinary teams, supported by Cifa experts, delivered the program in each location.

2. Key Dimensions of Adolescent Development in Colombia

a) Cultural Context of Adolescence in Colombia

Colombia is a country characterized by its multicultural and multiethnic composition (Laurent, 2018), with significant socio-demographic differences across regions (López-Ghio, 2024). It has also been deeply affected by prolonged armed conflict, economic disparities, and social marginalization (Suarez and Benavides, 2021), with profound implications for youth development (Conto et al., 2024). The impact of historical violence, forced displacement, and economic instability has negative implications in the lives of children (fig. 1) and adolescents, such as limited access to quality education, gender-based violence, and discrimination based on ethnicity and socioeconomic status (Quintero and Fida, 2023) influencing their emotional well-being, identity formation, and access to opportunities (Herrera-López et al., 2023).

The concept of resilience, therefore, emerges as a crucial factor for the young population’s ability to navigate adversity and construct meaningful life projects.

b) Resilience and Coping Strategies in Vulnerable Contexts

Resilience in the Colombian context is understood as the capacity of individuals to adapt, overcome, and transform adverse situations into opportunities for growth (Puerta and Vásquez, 2012). In this context, it is important to view resilience not as an inherent trait but rather a dynamic process (Sisto et al., 2019) that requires individual effort and support from the immediate social environment.

Adolescents in vulnerable contexts develop various coping mechanisms to deal with adversity. These strategies range from constructive behaviors, such as engaging in artistic and sports activities, to dysfunctional responses, including substance abuse (Hessler and Katz, 2010), self-harm, and affiliation with delinquent groups. Studies indicate that effective coping strategies among Colombian youth include problem-solving skills, social support networks, optimism, and emotional regulation. However, in the absence of adequate social and psychological support, many adolescents resort to avoidance strategies, such as denial, disengagement, or risky behaviors (Zablotsky et al., 2024). In Colombia, resilience is also linked to cultural and community-based coping mechanisms. Celebratory events, such as carnivals and collective rituals, serve as spaces for emotional expression and social cohesion, reinforcing a sense of belonging and identity (Córdoba et al., 2020).

c) Self-Esteem, Identity, and Life Projects in Adolescence

Self-esteem is a fundamental aspect of adolescent development, as it influences decision-making (Certel et al., 2013), emotional regulation (Gomez, Quiñones-Camacho and Davis, 2018), and interpersonal relationships (Sadovnikova, 2016). In the Colombian context, self-esteem is shaped by social, cultural, and economic factors, with significant variations depending on family dynamics and community support (Andrade-Salazar et al., 2017). Adolescents who grow up in nurturing environments tend to develop a stronger sense of self-worth; conversely, those exposed to neglect, discrimination, or violence are at higher risk of experiencing low self-esteem, social withdrawal, and emotional distress (Brandt et al., 2022; Tzouvara et al., 2023).

Identity formation is closely tied to self-esteem and is influenced by factors such as cultural heritage, family structures, and peer relationships. The Colombian National Policy on Childhood and Adolescence 2018-2030 (Gobierno de Colombia, 2018) emphasizes the importance of fostering an inclusive society that values diversity and promotes positive self-perception among youth. Adolescents in Colombia construct their identities through various social interactions, often drawing from different cultural references, including urban subcultures such as hip-hop, punk, and K-pop (Radio Nacional de Colombia, 2023). These affiliations provide them with a sense of belonging and avenues for self-expression, reinforcing their personal and collective identities.

The concept of proyecto de vida (life project) is also central to adolescent development, as it encapsulates their aspirations, goals, and sense of purpose. According to Hernández (2003), a life project represents an individual’s vision for the future and the critical decisions required to achieve personal fulfillment. In Colombia, the construction of life projects is often constrained by socio-economic barriers, such as limited access to education and employment opportunities. However, interventions focused on career guidance, skill development, and social empowerment have proven effective in helping people explore these challenges and set realistic goals for their future (Chaves-Oviedo and Dorado-Martinez, 2019).

d) Life Skills and Socio-Emotional Competencies

The development of socio-emotional competencies (Berg et al., 2017) is crucial for adolescents in vulnerable contexts, as these skills enable them to navigate social interactions (Lechner, Anger and Rammstedt, 2019), regulate emotions, and make well-reasoned decisions. The World Health Organization (1996) defines life skills as the set of cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal abilities that allow individuals to cope effectively with daily challenges. In the Colombian context, the most relevant life skills identified in adolescent development include self-awareness, empathy, assertive communication, critical thinking, problem-solving, and stress management (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho, 2021).

Education plays a fundamental role in strengthening these skills, particularly in environments where adolescents face multiple risk factors. Programs that integrate socio-emotional learning into the curriculum have demonstrated positive effects in enhancing resilience, promoting positive social behaviors, and reducing engagement in high-risk activities (Corrales et al., 2017; Choque-Larrauri, Chirinos-Caceres, 2009). Furthermore, fostering a sense of agency and empowerment among adolescents helps them take proactive steps toward achieving their personal and professional aspirations (Larson, 2011; Code, 2020).

3. Method

3.1 Research Question, Objectives and Analysis

The primary objective of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of the D.R.E.A.M. program through the administration of a self-assessment tool before and after the intervention. The evaluation method employed follows a quasi-experimental design with two groups, experimental and control. The sampling process was non-probabilistic and employed a purposeful approach, selecting participants based on criteria relevant to the study’s objectives, such as age and vulnerability. Both groups completed the same three self-assessment scales (described in section 3.3) at the beginning and end of the program. In order to evaluate the impact of the program, statistical analyses (t-tests, standard deviations, Cohen’s d) were performed on the data using PSPP software (GNU, ver. 2.0.1, 2024).

3.2 Context: The D.R.E.A.M. Program

The D.R.E.A.M. program is designed to equip adolescents in vulnerable contexts with the knowledge, tools, and self-awareness needed to: a) enhance their personal resilience and b) strengthen their adaptive capacities. Through structured activities and open discussion, the program fosters cognitive, emotional, and relational skills, promoting self-awareness and resilience as key protective factors. The program’s curriculum focuses on several key areas supported by various authors: self-esteem (Greene et al., 2005; Minhas, 2010), emotional regulation (Williams et al., 2009), and resilience (Reyes-Sanchez et al., 2020), all of which are approached from a didactic perspective. The topics covered include: identity, resources, self-love and self-esteem, emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, dreams and aspirations, interpersonal relationships, and personal identity. Overall, the program focuses on fostering self-awareness, self-esteem and empathy as key tools for strengthening the resilience of adolescents in vulnerable contexts.

a) Modules and Sessions

The D.R.E.A.M. program consists of eight core themes, each corresponding to a specific module within the program. These themes are covered over the course of 15 sessions, each lasting two hours. Sessions were conducted either weekly or biweekly, resulting in a total program duration of approximately 6-7 months. The 16th and final session was dedicated to the completion of final questionnaires, which took place approximately two months after the conclusion of the program.

Each session began with a brief guided attention exercise lasting 2 to 5 minutes, a practice designed to foster greater self-awareness and the intentional practice of being fully present in the moment (Brown and Ryan, 2003). Another fundamental aspect of the program was the establishment and reinforcement of shared norms, which were adhered to throughout the intervention. The general principles included: non-judgment, speaking from personal experience rather than on behalf of others; mutual respect; active participation and ensuring a safe and comfortable environment. These guidelines were particularly significant given the background of many of the participants involved in the program. In general, all activities were grounded in a narrative approach, incorporating diverse forms of artistic expression (such as drawing and music) and multimedia tools (including videos) as evocative strategies to enhance engagement and facilitate a more interactive and effective learning process.

b) The Facilitators of the Program

The sessions were conducted at Fundación Los Pisingos^[4], a IAPA (Institución autorizada para el proceso de adopción) in Bogotá. IAPAs are institutions accredited by the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare (ICBF^[5]) to carry out adoption processes in Colombia (Resolution No. 3748, 2010). In addition to their role in adoption, many IAPAs, including Pisingos, offer educational and extracurricular programs to minors in need. The foundation’s daily operations focus on assisting minors and families affected by abuse and violence, using educational programs and providing close support.

The D.R.E.A.M. program was facilitated by a multidisciplinary team from Pisingos consisting of a clinical psychologist and a pedagogist, both selected for their expertise in adolescent development and psychosocial intervention.

c) The D.R.E.A.M Program in the Colombian Context: Report and Analysis

Throughout the program, the Pisingos team systematically documented its progress through monthly reports which contained detailed descriptions of session dynamics, contextual observations, and reflections on participant engagement. These reports, summarized below, were prepared for both the experimental group, which participated in the D.R.E.A.M. program, and the control group, which followed an alternative program.

The process with the experimental group began with activities centered on self-reflection and identity expression, where students represented themselves through drawings. These visual representations revealed aspirations related to financial stability (see fig. 2), personal achievements, and social connections, particularly family and close relationships.

As the sessions progressed, participants took part in music-based exercises (e.g., selecting a song they identified with), allowing them to further explore their identity and personal preferences. As a result, some students expressed unresolved emotional conflicts and past experiences, highlighting the effectiveness of creative methods in fostering self-reflection (Autry and Walker, 2011).

The sessions dedicated to self-esteem encouraged students to recognize personal milestones and self-worth. They identified academic, social, and athletic achievements as key contributors to their confidence. However, a critical insight emerged when participants reflected on their interactions with others, realizing they tended to be more supportive of their peers than of themselves. This highlighted a need for interventions that balance self-compassion with social empathy, reinforcing the importance of self-acceptance alongside external validation.

Socio-emotional competencies and life skills development was a central aspect of the program. Through activities and reflection participants became more adept at identifying emotions not only in themselves but also in others, recognizing emotional cues in verbal expressions, facial features, and body language. A particularly relevant outcome was the realization that emotions are often layered and complex (Fischer et al., 1990), with students identifying multiple simultaneous feelings such as anxiety, happiness, and frustration. In a subsequent discussion on emotional beliefs, participants reflected on how social expectations influence emotional regulation, with some struggling to articulate their feelings due to fear of judgment. As the program advanced, the focus shifted toward the nature of relationships and conflicts. Students analyzed the essence of conflicts, differentiating between interpersonal disputes and broader relational dynamics.

Aspirations and future planning were then explored through activities that encouraged students to visualize their goals and define concrete steps to achieve them; they articulated ambitions ranging from professional success and higher education to personal and social fulfillment. An exercise involving symbolic representations with modeling clay allowed them to translate abstract ideas into tangible forms, reinforcing the connection between effort and achievement.

The final sessions delved into themes of love and relationships, expanding the students’ understanding beyond romantic connections to include self-love, familial bonds and friendships. Discussions on healthy versus toxic relationships further enhanced their awareness of personal boundaries and relational dynamics, equipping them with tools to recognize and navigate challenging interactions. The program concluded with a reflective session where students assessed their growth over the past months. Symbolic activities, such as planting a seed to represent personal development and writing letters to their future selves, provided a meaningful closure to the experience.

Final reports and follow-ups with the team that delivered the activities indicate that many students experienced increased self-awareness and a stronger sense of community. They acknowledged how the program enhanced their confidence, social interactions, and self-perception, highlighting its lasting impact on emotional development.

d) Control Group Activities

Focusing on communication styles, teamwork, cultural identity, and decision-making, the intervention for the control group used interactive methods such as group discussions, role-playing, artistic expression, and problem-solving exercises to foster self-awareness and socio-emotional skills. Early sessions addressed emotional expression and assertive communication, while later activities explored adolescence as a developmental stage (Gowers, 2005), teamwork dynamics, urban subcultures (e.g. Pop, Punk) and identity formation. Students engaged in collaborative tasks, film analysis, and creative projects. Despite initial resistance and challenges rooted in hostile social environments, participants demonstrated increased self-awareness, a clearer understanding of healthy communication, and a willingness to apply cooperative and adaptive strategies in their personal relationships, suggesting meaningful personal growth by the program’s conclusion. Although not initially planned in the experimental design, the reports indicate that the activities targeted areas similar to those covered by the D.R.E.A.M. program followed by the experimental group. This is understandable, as the themes of the D.R.E.A.M. program are broad, and many activities can fall under such themes.

3.3 Measurement Tools

The D.R.E.A.M. project implemented a variety of data collection tools aimed at achieving three main objectives: 1) gathering contextual data; 2) collecting data to assess the effectiveness of the programs; and 3) obtaining evidence to support improvements and optimize the pathway. The tools used included both quantitative methods and qualitative approaches.

a) Quantitative Tools

Three self-assessment scales were administered to both the experimental and control groups before and after the intervention. These validated scales have been widely used in research to measure critical psychological constructs.

1. Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) – Spanish Version

The first measure utilized was the 10-item Spanish version of the CD-RISC (Notario-Pacheco et al., 2011). This scale evaluates resilience; participants rated each item on a Likert scale from 0 (not true at all) to 4 (almost always true).

2. Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

The second measure was the ERQ (Gross and John, 2003), a 10-item instrument designed to assess individuals’ strategies for regulating emotions. The ERQ specifically evaluates two dimensions: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression; the original authors recommend separate analysis of these two components. Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

3. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)

The third instrument was the RSE (Rosenberg, 1979), a 10-item scale developed to measure self-esteem. Participants rated their responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

b) Qualitative Tools

As qualitative tools, the following were used:

1. A semi-structured interview (7 open-ended questions and 38 close-ended questions) administered to participants in both groups, aimed at gathering contextual data and obtaining information about the minors involved;
2. unstructured interviews conducted with various people involved in the project (trainers, teachers, and beneficiaries), in order to collect useful insights for assessing and improving the D.R.E.A.M. program.

3.4 Participants

Prior to the initiation of the program, participants from both groups were interviewed by the facilitators from Pisingos. The objective was to gather descriptive data and gain deeper insight into the family and socio-economic background of the participants. Participants from both groups attended a secondary school located within the same compound as Pisingos.

3.4.1 Experimental Group

a) Participants

The experimental group consisted of 20 participants aged 15 (10%), 16 (55%), and 17 (35%), with a predominance of males (65%). All participants reported attending school regularly^[6], all were enrolled in the 10th grade^[7], and their average academic performance was strong (mean score: 7.8/10). Outside of school, four students had a job; when asked about their leisure activities, 87.5% mentioned sports, while the remaining 12.5% indicated other hobbies.

b) Family Context

All participants live with their families and were asked to describe their household composition: 35% reported living with their mother and siblings; 25% live with both parents and siblings; 15% stated they live with extended family members, such as aunts, uncles, or grandparents, and the remaining 25% reported living with one parent, a step-parent, and siblings or step-siblings.

All participants had at least one sibling (fig. 3). Regarding parental relationships, 37.4% of the parents are in a relationship or married, whereas 52.6% are separated or divorced.

 c) Socio-Economic Context

All participants reported living in households with at least two other people (fig. 4), and in 70% of cases, at least two household members are employed.

A total of 95% of participants’ parents have attended school, with 26.3% having completed primary education, 57.9% completing secondary education, two having an undergraduate degree (pregrado), and one holding a postgraduate degree (posgrado).

Regarding perceived economic class, 80% identified as “middle class”, while the remaining 20% reported living in poverty. Outside of school, participants assumed family responsibilities such as caring for younger siblings or cousins (15%) or household chores (40%).

d) Family-Related Difficulties

When asked about experiences of abuse, 95% of participants denied any history of direct or indirect abuse within or outside the family. However, one participant reported experiencing emotional abuse. When asked, “Who do you turn to when facing a problem or concern?”, 40% responded “no one”, another 40% mentioned their parents, and 20% referred to their peer group.

3.4.2 Control Group

a) Participants

The control group consisted of 18 participants aged 15 (27.8%), 16 (55.6%), and 17 (16.7%), with a majority of males (66.7%). All participants reported attending school regularly, with 38.9% enrolled in the 8^th grade and 61.1% in the 9^th grade and overall academic performance was good (average mean score: 7.5/10). None of the participants were employed, and when asked about their leisure activities, 80% mentioned sports, while the remaining 20% listed other hobbies.

b) Family Context

All participants live with their families and were asked to describe their household composition: 39% reported living with their mother and siblings; 5% live with their father and siblings, 17% live with both parents and siblings; 22% stated they live with extended family members, such as aunts, uncles, or grandparents; and the remaining 17% reported living with one parent, a step-parent, and siblings or step-siblings.

All participants had at least one sibling, with 44.4% having 4 or more. Regarding parental relationships, 31.3% of parents are in a relationship or married, while 68.7% are separated or divorced.

c) Socio-Economic Context

All participants reported living in households with at least three other people, with 72% living with 5 or more. In 72% of cases, at least two household members are employed.

A total of 94% of parents have attended school, with 23.5% completing primary education and 76.5% completing secondary education.

Regarding perceived economic class, 44.4% identified as “middle class”, an equal proportion reported living in poverty, and the remaining 11.1% indicated extreme poverty. Outside of school, participants declare that they take on family responsibilities such as caring for younger siblings (16.7%), household chores (38.9%), or assisting family members with their work (5.6%).

d) Family-Related Difficulties

All participants denied experiencing any direct or indirect abuse within or outside the family. However, when asked, “Who do you turn to when facing a problem or concern?”, 38.9% responded “no one”, suggesting a lack of emotional support within the family.

3.4.3 Further Exploration of Participants’ Socio-Economic and Family Context: Interviews with Teachers

Given the vulnerability of the student population involved in the project, it was considered likely that some of the adolescents did not disclose certain personal reflections, experiences of violence, or instances of neglect during the interviews. This is understandable, as individuals who are victims of violence or neglect are often in a state of denial (Dinisman and Moroz, 2017). Additionally, cultural pressures (López de la Roche, 2014) and fear of judgment can further inhibit open expression regarding such sensitive topics. For these reasons, interviewing two teachers from the school attended by both the experimental and control group participants was deemed essential in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the actual socio-economic conditions and vulnerabilities of participants. The perspectives provided by these teachers allowed for the triangulation of information, offering deeper insights into the lived realities of the students. One teacher provided insights regarding the experimental group, while the other responded about the control group; only the interview outcomes pertinent to this discussion are reported below.

a) Discrepancies Between Self-Reported Data and Teachers’ Observations

Both teachers highlighted noticeable discrepancies between the information collected during the students’ self-assessments and their own daily observations. The experimental group teacher noted, “There is clearly a discrepancy because students often avoid talking about their real socio-economic or social situations”. Similarly, the control group teacher highlighted: “For them, it is normal that there is domestic violence. If they are beaten, it’s seen as the usual way to correct behavior”. These insights suggest that denial and normalization prevent accurate self-reporting.

b) Student’ Socio-Economic Background

Students come from highly vulnerable backgrounds; the experimental group teacher described them as from “low-income families, with limited access to educational and technological resources, often in single-parent households”. The control group teacher added: “The majority of these students are from socio-economic strata 1 and 2[8], where, in many cases, there is no access to basic public services such as water”. Parental education levels are also low; “90% of parents have completed only secondary education,” while some “can barely write their own name”.

c) Direct or Indirect Signs of Violence or Neglect

Both teachers consistently reported signs of neglect and violence. The experimental group teacher observed: “There are abrupt changes in behavior, including withdrawal, lack of concentration, irritability, and aggressive or defiant conduct”. Physical signs were also noted: “Some students display poor hygiene and lack of proper clothing. There are instances where students show up with bruises or injuries without clear explanations”. The control group teacher confirmed similar patterns, adding: “One student had a serious wound that was left untreated for weeks. The family ignored the child’s pain until the school intervened”.

d) Potential Cultural or Institutional Barriers to Disclosure

The interviews underscore profound cultural and institutional barriers that inhibit students from reporting abuse or neglect. Culturally, as stated by the experimental group teacher, there is a strong normalization of violence: “Many students fear the consequences of disclosure, such as reprisals from their family or being judged by peers. Traditional values often dictate that family problems should remain private”. The control group teacher expanded on these cultural factors: “Students often think that nothing will change if they report abuse. They fear becoming victims of further violence as a result of disclosing their experiences. This normalization of violence, coupled with institutional inefficiencies, discourages them from seeking help”. Both teachers highlighted systemic shortcomings: “Although protocols exist, the response is often slow and ineffective. The gap between education and health services is significant, and support mechanisms are underfunded or inaccessible”.

The testimonies from both teachers offer critical insights that go beyond what students self-reported in interviews. By triangulating data through these perspectives, a clearer and more nuanced picture of the students’ vulnerabilities emerges. Direct examples from the teachers highlight the socio-economic hardships, the normalization of violence, and the substantial barriers preventing students from accessing support or reporting abuse.

4. Results

This section presents the findings of the quantitative evaluation of the D.R.E.A.M. program, focusing on the four outcome variables: resilience, cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, and self-esteem, including both within-group and between-group comparisons.

a) Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the outcome variables are presented in Table 1. Means and standard deviations were calculated separately for the experimental group (EG) and control group (CG), at both pre and post intervention time points.

 b) Within-Group Comparisons

Paired-sample t-tests were conducted to examine the pre-post differences within each group (tab. 2).

No significant improvements were observed within the experimental group across the measured variables, despite small effect sizes suggesting minor trends in resilience and expressive suppression. Surprisingly, the control group showed a significant increase in cognitive reappraisal, raising questions about potential confounding factors or natural variation over time.

c) Between-Group Comparisons

Independent-sample t-tests were conducted on the change scores (post – pre) between the two groups; results are summarized in Table 3.

A statistically significant difference emerged for cognitive reappraisal (t = -2.13, p = 0.041), favoring the CG, with a very high effect size (d = -0.70). No other significant differences were observed between the EG and CG for resilience, expressive suppression, or self-esteem.

As shown in Figure 5, while both groups experienced some changes, the most notable improvement was in cognitive reappraisal within the control group.

4.1 Qualitative Insights

Although statistical analyses did not reveal significant changes in the experimental group, interviews conducted with program facilitators, professors, and beneficiaries suggest that the D.R.E.A.M. program had a meaningful impact on students’ socio-emotional skills, self-esteem, and interpersonal relationships. The full thematic analysis of these interviews will be presented in a subsequent article.

A professor working with the experimental group observed: “The students before were withdrawn and disruptive; now they are more open to interacting with peers and teachers in a healthy way”. He also noted improvements in emotional regulation: “There have been fewer episodes of aggression or isolation, and students now participate more actively in class and extracurricular activities”.

One of the facilitators acknowledged the program’s success while recognizing long-term challenges: “For lasting change, multiple aspects need to be addressed. More time and investment would have been needed”. However, she noted that the program helped students articulate their dreams: “Many students stopped being afraid to express “big” aspirations. That’s a valuable achievement”. Furthermore, a participant shared: “All the activities were interesting and hands-on. The facilitators always made time to talk to us, and we could open up to them in a way we wouldn’t with just anyone”. He reflected on personal growth: “Before, I was very hostile. Now, I fell calmer”. He also noted stronger group cohesion: “We (the experimental group) used to be more isolated, but now we work together, combining our strengths”.

These insights suggest that, despite the lack of statistical significance, the program fostered emotional growth, resilience, and a sense of belonging. Participants gained tools to navigate challenges, improve social interactions, and develop future aspirations.

5. Discussion

The present study examined the effects of the D.R.E.A.M. program on a sample of adolescents from vulnerable contexts. The outcomes were compared to those of a control group that participated in an alternative structured program that explored similar themes such as communication, teamwork and decision-making.

Contrary to initial hypotheses, the experimental group did not demonstrate statistically significant improvements in resilience, emotion regulation strategies, or self-esteem following the intervention. Small, non-significant changes in resilience and expressive suppression were observed, suggesting potential positive trends that did not reach significance in the current sample size. In contrast, the control group exhibited a statistically significant increase in cognitive reappraisal. Several factors may account for these findings. First, both groups received interventions targeting overlapping competencies (e.g., communication, teamwork, self-awareness), though through different methodologies. The control group engaged in participatory, reflective activities, including role-playing, artistic expression, and teamwork exercises, potentially fostering cognitive reappraisal and resilience similarly to the D.R.E.A.M. program^[9].

The methodological choice to also offer activities to the control group, rooted in ethical considerations related to the vulnerability of participants, likely minimized the differential impact typically observed between intervention and control conditions. Moreover, both groups operated within highly challenging socio-economic environments characterized by relational instability and exposure to violence. These contextual factors may have influenced the interventions’ effectiveness, limiting the magnitude of measurable changes over a relatively short time frame. The qualitative outcomes highlight the potential benefits of socio-emotional interventions, even when implemented under difficult conditions. Both quantitative and qualitative outcomes suggest that more prolonged or intensive interventions, or complementary strategies (e.g. family engagement), may be necessary to elicit robust and lasting changes.

5.1 Limitations and Future Directions

The study’s primary limitations include its small sample size and lack of a no-treatment control group, both of which constrain the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the overlapping thematic content between interventions may have diluted between-group differences.

Given the limited sample size and the complexity inherent in educational interventions aimed at promoting life skills, it is likely that a purely quantitative approach is insufficient to capture the nuanced impact of the D.R.E.A.M. program. Recognizing this, as previously mentioned, a complementary qualitative study has been conducted and will be presented in full in a subsequent article.

6. Conclusion

Quantitative outcomes underscore the importance of designing culturally sensitive programs that address the diverse needs of young people living in vulnerable settings. Furthermore, they point to the need for long-term, integrated approaches that involve not only adolescents but also their families, schools, and communities. Future research should continue to explore the qualitative impact of such interventions and consider the inclusion of larger, more diverse samples to strengthen the evidence base. Ultimately, initiatives like these serve as promising models for fostering positive development and empowering adolescents to envision and pursue meaningful life goals, even in the face of adversity. Furthermore, such models hold significant potential for replicability, with activities being tracked, monitored, and evaluated over time.

Notes

[1] Cifa Ets, url: <www.cifaong.it>.

[2] Authorship Attribution: T. Lattanzi is the primary author of the article and is responsible for its complete drafting. M.A. Verrienti, D.M. Bueno Ramirez, and D.E. Fernandez Castrillon contributed to the Introduction and Section 2. G. Pedron contributed to Section 3.2, while M. Ruffa Garrone contributed to Section 4.

[3] Commissione per le adozioni internazionali, url: <www.commissioneadozioni.it>.

[4] La fundación Los Pisingos, url: <www.lospisingos.com>.

[5] Instituto colombiano de bienestar familiar, url: <www.icbf.gov.co>.

[6] Compulsory schooling in Colombia ranges from ages 6 to 15.

[7] The Colombian education system consists of two main cycles: primary school and secondary school. Primary school includes six grades (0-5) and is attended from ages 5-6 to 11-12. Secondary school, attended from ages 11 to 17, also consists of six grades (6-11).

[8] Colombian Law 142 of 1994 establishes that residential properties and communities are classified into six socioeconomic strata (1 to 6). Strata 1-3 are lower-income households that receive subsidies on public utilities. Strata 5 and 6 are higher-income and pay additional charges to support subsidies. Strata 4 pays the standard rate without subsidies or extra charges.

[9] It is also important to note that the activities offered to the control group were taken from other educational programs that Pisingos has implemented over many years. These activities are probably better understood and more easily managed by the team of trainers as well.

Bibliography

Andrade-Salazar J.A., Duffay-Pretel L., Ortega-Maya P.A., Ramirez-Avilés E. and Carvajal-Valencia J.E., Autoestima y desesperanza en adolescentes de una institución educativa del quindío, in “Duazary”, 14(2), 2017, pp. 1-9, url: www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=512158734017.

Alta Consejería para los Derechos de las Víctimas, la Paz y la Reconciliación, Alcaldía de Bogotá, Fichas de información local. 1. Usaquén, 2019, url: observatorio.victimasbogota.gov.co/sites/default/files/documentos/1.%20Usaqu%C3%A9n%20%282%29.pdf.

Autry L.L. and Walker M.E., Artistic Representation: Promoting Student Creativity and Self-Reflection. Journal of Creativity, in “Mental Health”, 6(1), 2011, pp. 42-55, url: doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2011.560076.

Backes E.P. and Bonnie R.J., Adolescent Development. The Promise of Adolescence - NCBI Bookshelf, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2019, url: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545476/.

Berg J., Osher D., Same M.R., Nolan E., Benson D. and Jacobs N., Identifying, Defining, and Measuring Social and Emotional Competencies. Final Report. Prepared for and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, American Institutes for Research (AIR), Washington 2017, url: www.air.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Identifying-Defining-and-Measuring-Social-and-Emotional-Competencies-December-2017-rev.pdf.

Brandt L., Liu S., Heim C. and Heinz A., The effects of social isolation stress and discrimination on mental health, in “Translational Psychiatry”, 12(1), 2022, n. 398, url: doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-02178-4.

Brook D.W., Brook J.S., Rosen Z., De La Rosa M., Montoya I.D. and Whiteman M., Early risk factors for violence in Colombian adolescents, in “The American journal of psychiatry”, 160(8), 2003, pp. 1470-1478, url: doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1470.

Brown K.W. and Ryan R.M., The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being in “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, 84, 2003, pp. 822-848.

Carreño D., Localidad 01 Usaquén, Secretaría Distrital de Gobierno 2022.

Certel Z., Aksoy D., Çalışkan E., Lapa T.Y., Özçelik M.A. and Çelik G., Research on Self-esteem in Decision Making and Decision-making Styles in Taekwondo Athletes, in “Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences”, 93, 2013, pp. 1971-1975, url: doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.150.

Chaves-Oviedo M.L. and Dorado-Martinez A.D., Desarrollo de habilidades para la vida en Escuela Móvil: estrategia de empoderamiento de niños y adolescentes como sujetos de derecho, in “Universidad y Salud”, 21(3), 2019, pp. 205-214, url: doi.org/10.22267/rus.192103.157.

Choque-Larrauri R. and Chirinos-Cáceres J.L., Eficacia del Programa de Habilidades para la Vida en Adolescentes Escolares de Huancavelica, Perú, in “Revista de Salud Pública”, 11(2), 2009, pp. 169-181, url: www.redalyc.org/pdf/422/42217861002.pdf.

Code J., Agency for Learning: Intention, Motivation, Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation in “Frontiers in Education”, 5, 2020, url: doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00019.

Human Rights Watch, Colombia, in World Report 2023. Events of 2022, New York 2023, pp. 162-179, url: www.hrw.org/world-report/2023.

Conto L.P., Velez G., Restrepo A., Recchia H., Posada‐Gilede R. and Wainryb C., Urban Colombian youths’ perspectives on the armed conflict and possibilities for ways forward, in “Political Psychology”, 45(6), 2024, pp. 1087-1104, url: doi.org/10.1111/pops.12962.

Córdoba A.M.C., Camacho Y.J.M. and Peña A.J.P., Estrategias de Afrontamiento y Nivel de Resiliencia Presentes en Adultos Jóvenes Víctimas del Conflicto Armado Colombiano: Un Estudio Correlacional, in “Psykhe (Santiago)”, 29(2), 2020, url: doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.29.2.1513.

Corrales A., Quijano N.K. y Góngora E.A., Empatía, comunicación asertiva y seguimiento de normas. Un programa para desarrollar habilidades para la vida, in “Enseñanza e Investigación en Psicología”, 22(1), 2017, pp. 58-65.

Dinisman T. and Moroz A., Understanding victims of crime. The impact of the crime and support needs, Victim Support, London 2017, url: www.victimsupport.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/documents/files/VS_Understanding%20victims%20of%20crime_web.pdf.

Duncan G.J., Ziol-Guest K.M., Kalil A., Early-childhood poverty and adult attainment, behavior, and health, in “Child Development”, 81, 2010, pp. 306-325.

Farah M.J., Shera D.M., Savage J.H., Betancourt L., Giannetta J.M., Brodsky N.L., Malmud E.K. and Hurt H., Childhood poverty: Specific associations with neurocognitive development, in “Brain Research”, 1110(1), 2006, pp. 166-174, url: doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.072.

Fischer K.W., Shaver P.R. and Carnochan P., How Emotions Develop and How they Organise Development, in “Cognition & Emotion”, 4(2), 1990, pp. 81-127, url: doi.org/10.1080/02699939008407142.

Ford J.D., Complex Trauma and Developmental Trauma Disorder in Adolescence, in “Adolescent Psychiatry”, 7(4), 2017, pp. 220-235, url: doi.org/10.2174/2210676608666180112160419.

GNU project, 2024, url: www.gnu.org/software/pspp/.

Gobierno de Colombia, Política nacional de infancia y adolescencia 2018-2030, url: www.icbf.gov.co/sites/default/files/politica_nacional_de_infancia_y_adolescencia_2018_-_2030_0.pdf.

Gomez T., Quiñones-Camacho L. and Davis E., Building a Sense of Self: The Link between Emotion Regulation and Self-Esteem in Young Adults, in “UC Riverside Undergraduate Research Journal Submit”, 12(1), 2018, pp. 37-49, url: doi.org/10.5070/rj5121039160.

Gowers S., Development in adolescence, in “Psychiatry”, 4(6), 2005, pp. 6-9, url: doi.org/10.1383/psyt.4.6.6.66353.

Greene G.J., Lee M.Y. and Hoffpauir S., The languages of empowerment and strengths in clinical social work: A constructivist perspective, in “Families in Society”, 86 (2), 2005, pp. 267-277.

Gross J.J. and John O.P., Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being, in “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, 85, 2003, pp. 348-362.

Hernández O., Proyecto de vida y desarrollo integral humano, in “Revista Internacional Crecemos”, 6, 2003, pp. 1-19.

Herrera-López M., Delgado L.M.C., Torres Y.E.V. and Solarte L.H., Resiliencia y violencia en el noviazgo: un estudio explicativo-predictivo e instrumental con adolescentes colombianos, in “Suma Psicológica”, 30(1), 2023, pp. 30-39.

Hessler D.M. and Katz L.F., Brief report: Associations between emotional competence and adolescent risky behavior, in “Journal of adolescence”, 33(1), 2010, pp. 241-246, url: doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.007.

Higgins S., Katsipataki M., Villanueva-Aguilera A.B., Coleman R., Henderson P., Major L.E., Coe R. and Mason D., The Sutton Trust. Education Endowment Foundation teaching and learning toolkit’ manual, Education Endowment Foundation, London, 2016.

Istituto colombiano de bienestar familiar (2010), Resolucion 3748 (septiembre 6), Diario Oficial No. 47.850 de 2 de octubre de 2010, url: www.icbf.gov.co/cargues/avance/compilacion/docs/pdf/resolucion_icbf_3748_2010.pdf.

Kiely K. M., Leach L. S., Olesen S. C. and Butterworth P., How financial hardship is associated with the onset of mental health problems over time, in “Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology”, 50(6), 2015, pp. 909-918, url: doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1027-0.

Lahousen T., Unterrainer H.F. and Kapfhammer H.P., Psychobiology of Attachment and Trauma-Some General Remarks from a Clinical Perspective, in “Frontiers in psychiatry”, 10, 2019, url: doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00914.

Larson R.W. and Angus R.M., Adolescents’ Development of Skills for Agency in Youth Programs: Learning to think Strategically, in “Child Development”, 82(1), 2011, pp. 277-294, url: doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01555.x.

Laurent V. Multiculturalism in Colombia: Twenty-five Years of Experience, Global Centre for Pluralism, 2018, url: www.pluralism.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Colombia_EN.pdf.

Lawson D.M. and Quinn J., Complex Trauma in Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Settings, in “Journal of Clinical Psychology”, 69, 2013, pp. 497-509, url: doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21990.

Lechner C.M., Anger S. and Rammstedt B., Socio-emotional skills in education and beyond: recent evidence and future research avenues, in R. Becker (ed.), Research Handbook on the Sociology of Education, “Social and Political Science 2019”, Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton 2019, pp. 427-453, url: doi.org/10.4337/9781788110426.00034.

López De La Roche F., Condicionamientos culturales de la violencia en Colombia, in “Universitas Humanística”, 42, 2014, pp. 67-80, url: revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/univhumanistica/article/view/9665.

López-Ghio R., Territorial inequalities in Colombia: realities and prospects, in “Impacto”, December 18 2024, url: blogs.iadb.org/efectividad-desarrollo/en/territorial-inequalities-in-colombia-realities-and-prospects.

Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho, Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito y Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar, Habilikit. Caja de herramientas para el desarrollo de Habilidades para la Vida en adolescentes y jóvenes del Sistema de Responsabilidad Penal para Adolescentes – SRPA. Manual de Uso, 2021, url: www.minjusticia.gov.co/programas-co/ODC/Documents/Prevencion-Consumo-Drogas/1.%20Caja-Herramientas-Habilikit.pdf.

Minhas G., Developing realised and unrealised strength.  Implications for engagement, self‐esteem, life satisfaction and well‐being, in “Assessment and Development Matters”, 2(1), 2010, pp. 12-16, url: doi.org/10.53841/bpsadm.2010.2.1.12.

Notario-Pacheco B., Solera-Martínez M., Serrano-Parra M.D., Bartolomé-Gutiérrez R., García-Campayo J. and Martínez-Vizcaíno V., Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-RISC) in young adults, in “Health and quality of life outcomes”, 9, 2011, n. 63, url: doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-63.

Puerta E.H., Vásquez M.R., Concepto de resiliencia, in “Caminos para la resiliencia”, 1, 2012, pp. 1-4.

Quintero D.T.M. and Fida M.F.H., Overcoming Challenges of education: Effects of structural violence and advances in quality education in Colombia and Pakistan, in “Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar”, 7(6), 2024, pp. 9043-9069, url: doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v7i6.11036. 

Barreto M., Los desafíos que afrontan los jóvenes en Colombia, in “Radio Nacional De Colombia”, 12 Agosto 2023, url: www.radionacional.co/actualidad/jovenes-en-colombia-que-desafios-enfrentan.

Reyes-Sanchez C., Castaño-Pérez G.A., Ceballos-Alatorre B., Martínez-Aguilera P. and Yañez-Castillo B.G., Environmental influence on adolescent resilience development in Medellin Colombia, in “Aquichan”, 20(2), 2020, pp. 1-11, url: doi.org/10.5294/aqui.2020.20.2.4.

Rosenberg M., Society and the adolescent self-image, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown 1989.

Sadovnikova T., Self-esteem and interpersonal relations in adolescence, in “Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences”, 233, 2016, pp. 440-444, url: doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.181.

Santos R. A., Coronel Ruiz L. K., Ayala García E. T., Costos, daños y consecuencias del conflicto armado en Colombia desde una mirada territorial y comunitaria, in “Módulo Arquitectura CUC”, 31, 2023, pp. 93-110.

Sisto A., Vicinanza F., Campanozzi L.L., Ricci G., Tartaglini D. and Tambone V., Towards a Transversal Definition of Psychological Resilience: A Literature Review, in “Medicina”, 55(11), 745, 2019, url: doi.org/10.3390/medicina55110745.

Suarez K.J.R. and Benavides E.O., Desigualdad y pobreza en Colombia: ¿Cuál es el dilema?, in “Semestre Económico”, 24(57), 2022, pp. 98-124, url: doi.org/10.22395/seec.v24n57a5.

Tzouvara V., Kupdere P., Wilson K., Matthews L., Simpson A. and Foye U., Adverse childhood experiences, mental health, and social functioning: A scoping review of the literature, in “Child Abuse & Neglect”, 139, 2023, url: doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106092.

Williams L.E., Bargh J.A., Nocera C.C. and Gray J.R., The unconscious regulation of emotion: Nonconscious reappraisal goals modulate emotional reactivity, in “Emotion”, 9(6), 2009, pp. 847-854, url: doi.org/10.1037/a0017745.

World Health Organization, Life Skills Education. Planning for Research, Geneva 1996, url: iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/338491/MNH-PSF-96.2.Rev.1-eng.pdf.

Zablotsky B., Amanda E., Black L.I., Bose J., Jones R.J., Maitland K.A. and Blumberg J.S., Perceived Social and Emotional Support Among Teenagers: United States, July 2021-December 2022, in “National Health Statistics Reports”, 206, 2024, url: dx.doi.org/ 10.15620/cdc/156514.

The authors

Teodora Lattanzi is a PhD candidate (XXXIX cycle) in Psychological, anthropological, and pedagogical sciences at the University of Turin. With a background in philosophy and pedagogy, her research primarily focuses on career guidance. Maria Alessandra Verrienti is an international aid worker, program coordinator, and trainer with 15+ years of experience in child rights, education, and youth empowerment. She holds a Master's in humanitarian assistance and is a certified counselor focused on mental health. Marta Ruffa Garrone holds an MA in women’s and gender studies, with a background in social sciences and postcolonial studies. She works in emergency contexts, focusing on social justice, inclusion, and non-formal education. Giuseppe Pedron is a humanitarian and development worker with academic background and expertise in human skills, intercultural studies, and psychological counseling. He supports adolescents and international teams in life development and stress management. Diana Marcela Bueno Ramirez is a psychologist with a specialization in forensic psychology and training in human rights and international humanitarian law. She has over 12 years of experience working with vulnerable populations and trauma-informed care. Daniel Enrique Fernandez Castrillon is the director of Fundación Los Pisingos, where he has led efforts for over 12 years to provide comprehensive care for vulnerable Colombian children, positioning the foundation as a key agent of change.