a)     The Project “Their Tomorrow”

According to the Colombian Forensic System, the family environment is considered the most violent context (Brook et. Al, 2003). In Colombia, many children and adolescents exhibit symptoms of complex trauma (Ford, 2017)), which lead to challenges in social integration and the formation of stable emotional attachments (Lahousen, 2019). These difficulties are often accompanied by poor adaptability, heightened stress and anxiety (Lawson, Quinn, 2013). In response to these issues, the project “Their tomorrow”, led by C.I.F.A. ETS, a Turin (Italy) based NGO, incorporates psychological and social support to help minors overcome trauma, improve their social integration, and establish stable emotional bonds. The primary objective of the project is to contribute to the psycho-physical well-being of the most vulnerable minors in Colombia, with a particular focus on children living in contexts marked by poverty and violence. The project is distinguished by a robust partnership that fosters collaboration between institutions, organizations, and associations from both Colombia and Italy. The initiative leverages the expertise and experience of a diverse group of partners, including 11 Italian organizations, two Colombian civil society organizations (CSOs) with extensive experience in international cooperation, four Authorized Institutions to Carry Out Adoption Processes (IAPAS), and experts from the Department of Child Neuropsychiatry at the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin, Italy.

The project “Their tomorrow” has different objectives; this paper focuses on one particular intervention, carried out in the Usaquén neighborhood of Bogotá, a peripheral area characterized by high rates of violence (Carreño, 2022) and multidimensional poverty (Alta Consejería para los Derechos de las Víctimas, la Paz y la Reconciliación, 2019). Within this context, a pilot educational program was implemented with a group of 20 adolescents (ages 15 to 17), aimed at developing life skills and fostering resilience. The program, designed by the C.I.F.A. team, is titled D.R.E.A.M.: “Developing Resilience and Empowering Adaptive Minds”. Since May 2024, the program ran weekly, consisting of 16 two-hour modules/sessions; the final session took place in November 2024.

b)     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 b) strengthen their adaptive capacities, and c) prevent antisocial behaviors. The program’s curriculum focuses on several key areas: self-esteem (Greene et. Al, 2005; Minhas, 2010), emotional capacity (Williams et. Al, 2009), and resilience (Reyes-Sanchez et. Al, 2020), all of which are approached from a didactic perspective. The specific topics covered include: identity, resources, self-love and self-esteem, emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, dreams and aspirations, interpersonal relationships, and personal identity.

The sessions were conducted at Fundación Los Pisingos, a IAPAS (Institución Autorizada para el Proceso de Adopción) in Bogotá. IAPAS are institutions accredited by the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare (ICBF) to carry out adoption processes in Colombia (Resolution No. 374, 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 to those in need.

The psychologists facilitating the D.R.E.A.M. program at Pisingos underwent specialized training on the model before engaging with the adolescents. Throughout the course of the program, bi-weekly supervision meetings were held, allowing the Pisingos team to review the sessions, activities, and materials with the experts from C.I.F.A. These sessions also provided an opportunity for the sharing and supervision of the activities conducted, ensuring quality and consistency in the implementation of the program.

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, to answer to the research question on the effectiveness of the program, follows a classical experimental design with two groups: an experimental group and a control group (that participated in an alternative program). Participants were selected from a secondary school, located within the same complex as Pisingos, ensuring that the program could be conducted during school hours, which was the only feasible way to guarantee continuity throughout the course. Before the start of the program, at the end of April 2024, the participants in both the experimental and control groups were interviewed by the psychologists from Pisingos. The aim of these interviews was to collect descriptive data and explore the family and socio-economic context of the teenagers. The interviews were semi-structured, consisting of 7 open-ended questions and 38 closed-ended questions. The experimental group consists of 20 participants; in relation to age, 10% are 15, 55% are 16, and 35% are 17, with the majority being male (65%). The control group (n=18) includes 27.8% of 15 year olds, 55.6% 16 year olds, and 16.7% who are 17 years old, with 66.7% male participants. Both groups completed the same self-assessment scale at the beginning and end of the program, which, timing wise, corresponded to the first and final sessions for the experimental group. The self-assessment questionnaire includes three scales that are established in literature, selected based on the relevance of the topics covered by the D.R.E.A.M. program and aligned with its objectives. The scales used to measure key dimensions are as follows: 1. Resilience – 10 item CD-RISC scale (Notario-Pacheco et. Al, 2011) 2. Emotional suppression and cognitive reappraisal – Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, ERQ (Gross, John, 2003). This scale is interpreted with two subscales when analyzing data. 3. Self-esteem – Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, RSE (Rosenberg, 1989) To evaluate the impact of the program, statistical analyses (t-tests, standard deviations, Cohen’s d, and correlations) were performed on the data using PSPP software (GNU, ver. 2.0.1, 2024). This analysis aims to determine the significance of the changes observed in the experimental group compared to the control group. Furthermore, non-structered interviews were conducted and analyzed to intepret outcomes.

The 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. 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.

Alta Consejería para los Derechos de las Víctimas, la Paz y la Reconciliación (2019). Usaquén. Fichas de información local. https://observatorio.victimasbogota.gov.co/sites/default/files/documentos/1.%20Usaqu%C3%A9n%20%282%29.pdf Brook, D. W., Brook, J. S., Rosen, Z., De La Rosa, M., Montoya, I. D., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Early risk factors for violence in Colombian adolescents. The American journal of psychiatry, 160(8), 1470–1478. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1470 Carreño, D. (2022). Localidad 01 Usaquén. Secretaría Distrital de Gobierno. https://historico.gobiernobogota.gov.co/sites/gobiernobogota.gov.co/files/imagenes/localidad_1_-_usaquen.pdf C.I.F.A., https://www.cifaong.it/ Ford, J. D. (2017). Adolescent Psychiatry, Volume 7, Number 4, 2017, pp. 220-235(16). Bentham Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2174/2210676608666180112160419 Fundación Los Pisingos, https://www.lospisingos.com/ GNU project (2024). https://www.gnu.org/software/pspp/ Greene, G. J., Lee, M. Y., & Hoffpauir, S. (2005). The languages of empowerment and strengths in clinical social work: A constructivist perspective. Families in Society, 86 (2), 267–277. Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362. Istituto colombiano de bienestar familiar (2010), Resolucion 3748 (septiembre 6). Diario Oficial No. 47.850 de 2 de octubre de 2010. https://www.icbf.gov.co/cargues/avance/compilacion/docs/pdf/resolucion_icbf_3748_2010.pdf Lahousen, T., Unterrainer, H. F., & Kapfhammer, H. P. (2019). Psychobiology of Attachment and Trauma-Some General Remarks From a Clinical Perspective. Frontiers in psychiatry, 10, 914. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00914 Lawson, D.M. and Quinn, J. (2013), Complex Trauma in Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Settings. J. Clin. Psychol., 69: 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21990 Minhas, G. (2010). Developing realised and unrealised strengths: Implications for engagement, self‐esteem, life satisfaction and well‐being. Assessment and Development Matters, 2(1), 12–16. https://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., & Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. (2011). Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-RISC) in young adults. Health and quality of life outcomes, 9, 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-63 Reyes-Sanchez, C., Castaño-Pérez, G. A., Ceballos-Alatorre, B., Martínez-Aguilera, P., & Yañez-Castillo, B. G. (2020). Environmental influence on adolescent resilience development in Medellin Colombia. Aquichan, 20(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5294/aqui.2020.20.2.4 Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. (rev. ed.). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press Williams, L. E., Bargh, J. A., Nocera, C. C., & Gray, J. R. (2009). The unconscious regulation of emotion: Nonconscious reappraisal goals modulate emotional reactivity. Emotion, 9(6), 847–854. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017745