Abstract
School counselors have an essential role in preparing at-risk, historically excluded, and vulnerable populations for academic and postsecondary opportunities, and supporting their social/emotional development. One population that is often systemically underserved and overlooked is undocumented students. The Migration Policy Institute (2023) reported an estimated 13.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States, approximately one million of whom are school-aged children between the ages of 5 and 18. The American School Counselor Association (ASCA), the professional organization for U.S. school counselors, released a position statement specific to students with undocumented status and affirmed school counselors’ responsibility to serve and advocate for students regardless of citizenship status (ASCA, 2025). School counselors are also ethically mandated to support at-risk and underserved populations, regardless of student backgrounds (ASCA, 2022). Moreover, due to the contentious political climate that potentially impacts the physical, emotional, and mental health, safety, and overall livelihood of undocumented students and families, school counselors have a unique obligation to remain current on policies that impact this population (Aragón, 2017). School counselors should also be knowledgeable about and provide resources to undocumented students and families and advocate for this population to teachers, staff, and school administrators (Aragón, 2017). Considering that school counselors will likely encounter undocumented students, they need the preparation to support these students and families (Crawford & Arnold, 2016; Storlie, 2016).
Undocumented Students
Undocumented students are school-aged immigrants who reside in the United States without authorized status. Their circumstances vary and may include: (a) entering the United States with or without parents and lacking authorized residency documentation (e.g., a visa or permanent resident card); (b) previously holding authorized residency documentation that has since expired while remaining in the country; (c) actively seeking immigration or citizenship status; or (d) receiving Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, which provides temporary protection from deportation but does not guarantee permanent legal residency (Benenson, 2024; Bernal-Arevalo et al., 2021; Groce & Johnson, 2021; Lawrence, 2014). Undocumented students originate from diverse regions of the world and represent a heterogeneous population with varied legal circumstances, migration histories, and lived experiences.
After migrating to the United States, undocumented students face a multitude of factors that affect their daily lives. These students are particularly vulnerable to legal and financial constraints (Gonzales, 2010). Their legal status can lead to interruptions in their education due to financial hardships, limited job opportunities, and the precarious legal situations of undocumented or mixed-status family members who may depend on their income. Undocumented students have also described hostile encounters rooted in societal perceptions of illegality, fostering feelings of shame, fear of disclosing their status, and a sense of isolation, which also led to feeling like potential criminals due to their undocumented status (Cha et al., 2019; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2011). Misconceptions, stereotypes, and effects of carcerality contribute to emotional and psychological barriers that impact how undocumented students understand their experience in society (Buenavista, 2018).
Furthermore, the constant stress associated with these factors exacerbates the difficulties undocumented students face, including school attendance, academic achievement, and overall physical and mental health due to increasing immigration enforcements (Pillai et al., 2025). Moreover, there is an increased likelihood that they will drop out of school before completing their education compared to the national average (Zong & Batalova, 2019). Those who arrived at age 14 or older are more likely to drop out of school, which negatively correlates with higher educational attainment (Passel & Cohn, 2009). Having undocumented status may represent both individual and collective barriers to success. Such barriers include but not are not limited to microaggressions, discriminatory financial aid policies, restricted life opportunities, exclusionary college admissions processes, lowered expectations for college success, fear of disclosing their undocumented status, and lack of recognition of their unique struggles (Nienhusser et al., 2016).
Family dynamics also play a significant role in shaping the educational experiences of undocumented students. Researchers have reported that parents of undocumented students often cannot advocate for them and are frequently afraid to seek assistance from school counselors due to concerns about their legal status (Fix & Passel, 2003; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2011). Many undocumented families also struggle with a lack of understanding of American standard English and the complexities of the U.S. education system, further limiting their ability to support their children’s academic success and access to external support networks (Pang et al., 2010). Moreover, the increased threats and fears of deportation have been associated with adversities that impact the well-being of children and family systems, affecting their safety and presence in schools (Gutierrez & Silverio, 2026; Talleyrand & Vojtech, 2019). Together, these legal, familial, linguistic, and social barriers create a complex web of obstacles that significantly impact the academic and personal development of undocumented students, making it difficult for them to achieve long-term educational success and physical, mental, and social stability. Recognizing these diverse experiences is crucial for developing policies and practices that promote educational equity for all undocumented students.
Understanding the successes of undocumented students can provide valuable insights for educators seeking to better support those who face challenges (Borjian, 2018). Research has indicated that, despite the risk factors, undocumented students with strong personal and environmental protective factors (e.g., supportive families, close friendships, active participation in school activities) tend to report higher levels of academic success compared to peers with fewer support systems (Perez et al., 2009). Beyond personal goals, undocumented students are also motivated by a deep sense of responsibility toward their families and communities. Qualitative findings have shown that resilience among undocumented students is rooted in their ability to use community cultural wealth, maintain strong support networks, and find identity through education, while also expressing a desire to honor their families’ sacrifices, give back to their supportive communities, and serve as role models for other undocumented students (Borjian, 2018; Chang et al., 2017). Their academic achievements often function as a form of social activism, challenging stereotypes and advocating for enhanced access to education (Borjian, 2018). These students’ resilience often stems from intentionally differentiating their undocumented status from their identity, viewing it as a legal designation rather than a defining characteristic (Chang et al., 2017).
Role of School Counselors
Considering the increasing population of undocumented students present in U.S. schools, school counselors will likely be in contact with this population, their families, and communities. However, due to the hidden nature of undocumented students’ identities, school counselors, regardless of their level of training, may be unaware of the actual number of undocumented students within their schools. The U.S. Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe (1982) ensured that all children in the United States have the right to a free and public education regardless of their immigration status or that of their caregivers. In alignment, ASCA has affirmed that school counselors are ethically and professionally responsible for providing equitable services to all students, including undocumented students (ASCA, 2022, 2025). Specifically, ASCA’s position statement on working with students experiencing issues surrounding undocumented status highlights the unique stressors these students face, such as acculturative stress, family separation, and legal uncertainties (ASCA, 2025). School counselors play a critical role in eliminating barriers that impede student development and achievement, and in advocating for equal access to academic, social/emotional, and career resources (Rodriguez & McCorkle, 2020). These efforts may also include supporting students’ college aspirations despite financial barriers, such as being ineligible for Title IV federal financial aid, grants, loans, and work-study programs.
A school counselor’s role is to advocate for and support all students to thrive academically, socially, and emotionally. Yet even with policies and ethical standards, research shows that school counselors are often uninformed and/or misinformed about resources and lived experiences of undocumented students and their families (ASCA, 2025; Nienhusser et al., 2016; Rusin, 2014). To date, few studies have explored the roles of school counselors’ self-reported personal and professional demographics and their level of preparation and competence to serve undocumented students. School counselors are trained and ethically mandated to work with and support all students and must refrain from imposing any personal beliefs, values, or implicit biases that may harm or affect the rapport and services delivered to students and stakeholders (ASCA, 2022; Parikh et al., 2011). School counselors also are responsible for engaging in routine and content-applicable training and supervision to honor the diverse experiences of students and maintain a high standard of care (ASCA, 2022). Considering these critical ethical responsibilities, we perceive a need to understand how, if at all, school counselors’ personal and professional demographic identities, beliefs, or values may potentially influence their advocacy for undocumented students (Parikh et al., 2011).
Further, despite the importance of school counselors understanding their current ethical and legal responsibilities through training (ASCA, 2022), school counselors have reported feeling unprepared in their understanding of state and federal laws that impact undocumented students, and feeling limited in their efforts to seek services on behalf of undocumented students and families due to policies and events outside of their control (Crawford & Valle, 2016; Storlie, 2016). Scholars have also indicated that school counselors may not understand how Latina/o undocumented students’ collectivistic worldviews impact their ability to adapt to the U.S. school culture, which in turn affects the counseling relationship and students’ openness about their immigration status (Crawford & Valle, 2016; Nienhusser et al., 2016; Rusin, 2014; Storlie, 2016). Chavez (2023) found that role confusion, lack of training, and risk of job termination were identified as significant barriers for school counselors working with undocumented students. At present, no training standards or recommendations are in place for school counselors specific to serving undocumented students per ASCA, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Programs (CACREP), or other professional counseling organizations, other than general recommendations for training and supervision to develop counselors’ professional competence (ASCA, 2025; CACREP, 2024). Cisneros and Lopez (2016) recommended that institutionalized training on issues related to undocumented students for school-based professionals can enhance their knowledge, awareness, and skills to support this population. School counselors can have a positive influence on an undocumented student’s trajectory, especially because students reported trust as a main factor to seek support and valued how they were treated or supported rather than the information given (Chavez, 2023).
When school counselors support undocumented students in school settings and receive training to enhance their advocacy competence, they can advocate for undocumented students and their families in accessing culturally relevant mental health care, academic resources, and postsecondary supports (Crawford & Arnold, 2016). Crawford et al. (2019) reported that school counselors also often challenge people and policies that inhibit undocumented students’ access to relationships and resources needed for success. This advocacy offers opportunities to develop relationships with and make practical, meaningful impacts on historically marginalized communities, whether through provision of educational access or resources for families (Crawford & Arnold, 2016). Practicing and preservice school counselors must gain awareness of the current needs of the growing population of undocumented students and their families that they will encounter. School counselor educators must also be aware of and model advocacy practices when teaching, training, and supervising graduate students. For school counselors to be effective advocates, they must develop and possess the knowledge, awareness, and skills about undocumented students to understand and advocate for the needs of this marginalized population.
Purpose of the Study
Much of the existing literature on undocumented students and school counseling has focused on higher education contexts. Few quantitative empirical works have explored elementary and secondary school counselors’ roles and experiences in working with undocumented students. This study is the first national study to address the current state of school counselors’ work with undocumented students across different grade levels, their reported competence and contact levels with undocumented students, and how these elements predict school counselors’ advocacy for this population. The intention was to assess the current level of training and impact on future professional development needs for school counselors and graduate students entering the profession. Therefore, the guiding research questions of this study were: (a) Do contact level and competence predict school counselors’ advocacy for undocumented students? and (b) Does school counselors’ advocacy for undocumented students differ based on the amount of training received to serve this population, the percentage of undocumented students served at their schools, and their self-reported personal and professional demographics?
Method
Procedures
We utilized a cross-sectional survey research design to capture data on practicing school counselors’ perceptions of their contact level, competence, and advocacy for undocumented students. We received approval to conduct the study through the institutional review boards of the authors’ universities. Prior to conducting the study, we performed an a priori power analysis using G*Power (Balkin & Sheperis, 2011; Faul et al., 2007), and utilizing 90% power, an alpha of .001, and an anticipated medium effect size, we identified that a minimum sample size of 166 was required to conduct a linear multiple regression with two predictor variables. The final sample size (N = 459) met the minimum sample size required for the study.
To acquire a nationally representative sample of practicing school counselors, we downloaded a list of all U.S. public schools from the Common Core of Data database from the Elementary/Secondary Information System through the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (2019). We then generated a sample of elementary, middle, high school, and other grade level schools (i.e., K–12, 6–12, K–8) via stratified random sampling. Using each school’s provided information, we went to the school’s website to identify contact information for at least one school counselor. If the school had no school counselor on staff or no contact information available, we removed the school from the list. If any school had multiple school counselors, we used a random number generator to randomly select a school counselor to contact via email. We obtained a list of 6000 eligible school counselors and sent emails to 5979 school counselors with valid email addresses to invite them to participate in a study on a Qualtrics survey. A total of 648 recipients responded to the survey, resulting in a 7.7% response rate. This response rate is comparable to previously conducted online cross-sectional survey studies with school counseling practitioners as participants (Hatch et al., 2015; Hilts et al., 2019; Mullen et al., 2019). The survey included three attention check questions to improve data quality and attentive responses from participants without affecting the scales’ validity (Alvarez & Li, 2022; Kung et al., 2018; Shamon & Berning, 2020). Due to the overall length of the survey, we placed these validity check questions throughout the survey and included questions unrelated to the survey (e.g., “Select which of the following answers is a color”) to ensure participant attentiveness and response accuracy. After data cleaning and removing respondents who failed the validity checks (i.e., answered the three attention check questions incorrectly), we had a total of 459 participants. Participants were also offered entry in a raffle for one of 40 $25 gift cards as an incentive for participating in the study.
Participants
Participants included 459 practicing school counselors from U.S. public schools with a mean age of 41.55 (SD = 11.35, Mdn = 41.0, range = 23–74). The majority of the sample was female (n = 410, 89.3%) with 44 (9.6%) male participants and 5 (1.1%) participants who preferred not to disclose their gender. The sample was predominantly White (n = 337, 73.4%), with 50 (10.9%) participants identifying as Black or African American, 34 (7.4%) as Hispanic or Latino, 21 (4.6%) as multiracial, 6 (1.3%) as Asian, 5 (1.1%) as American Indian or Alaska Native, 1 (0.2%) as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 5 (1.1%) identifying as other.
Most participants had a master’s degree (n = 318, 69.3%), and other participants held post-master’s (n = 121, 26.4%) and doctorate (n = 20, 4.4%) degrees. The majority (n = 322, 70.2%) graduated from CACREP institutions and 71 (15.5%) participants graduated from non-CACREP institutions; 66 (14.4%) did not recall their institution’s CACREP status. On average, the participants had 9.93 years of experience as school counselors (SD = 7.98, Mdn = 7.0, range = 0–40). Many worked in elementary schools (n = 139, 30.3%), followed by middle schools (n = 124, 27%), high schools (n = 96, 20.9%), and other grade level schools (i.e., K–12, 6–12, K–8; n = 100, 21.8%). Participants mostly worked in public school settings (n = 407, 88.7%); the remainder reported working at public charter (n = 34, 7.4%), public magnet (n = 8, 1.7%), public virtual (n = 5, 1.1%), and other types (n = 5, 1.1%) of public school settings. The largest portion of participants worked in rural school locations (n = 217, 47.3%), with 153 (33.3%) in suburban locales, 88 (19.2%) in urban locales, and 1 (0.2%) working in another unspecified locale.
Regarding geographic regions within the United States, 162 (35.3%) participants were in the southern region, 123 (26.8%) were in the Midwest, 97 (21.1%) were in the western region, 72 (15.7%) were in the Northeast, and 5 (1.1%) chose not to disclose their location. Participants reported that their average caseload size was 368.62 students per school counselor (SD = 228.30, Mdn = 350.0, range = 0–3800). As for the approximate percentage of undocumented students and/or DACA recipients in their caseload (if known), 60.6% of participants reported being unsure, 18.5% of participants reported having none, 13.3% of participants estimated having 1%–5% in their caseload, and 7.4% estimated 6%–25% in their caseload.
A majority of participants reported being members of ASCA (n = 285, 62.1%), while 170 (37.0%) reported not being members and 4 (0.9%) were unsure. Participants were also asked about the level of ASCA National Model® implementation at their schools: 108 (23.5%) reported high levels of implementation (i.e., most or all components implemented), 231 (50.3%) reported medium levels (i.e., about half of the components implemented), and 74 (16.1%) reported low levels (i.e., few components implemented). Thirty (6.5%) participants reported being familiar with the ASCA National Model®, but it was not implemented at their schools, and 16 (3.5%) reported being unfamiliar with the model.
Measures
The participants completed a researcher-designed demographics questionnaire. We also utilized three scales to measure contact level, perceived competence, and level of advocacy in working with undocumented student populations. Due to the lack of any existing scales specific to undocumented populations, we modified existing measures. The modifications primarily included changing key words on the scale items to include terms related to undocumented students (described later in this section). The scale factors and structural design did not change. After making the modifications, we invited an expert panel of five reviewers to provide feedback and recommendations on the modified version of the scales (Kalkbrenner, 2021). The expert panelists included individuals who had scholarly or clinical expertise on undocumented students, scale development, and/or school counseling practice.
Prior to conducting the study, we conducted a small-scale pilot study with a sample of school counselors (N = 60) to receive feedback on the scales utilized in the survey, particularly because the wording of the items was modified in the scales to apply to school counselors serving undocumented student populations. The pilot study participants were recruited through ASCA Scene (an active discussion board of ASCA members), word of mouth, and social media postings in private Facebook groups. Based on the participants’ feedback, we further clarified the wording of instructions, items, and Likert scaling for the scales. We received permission from the original authors of the scales for the modifications, and shared copies of the modified scales for their feedback and approval.
Demographics Questionnaire
This questionnaire comprised items to collect participants’ demographic information. The questions addressed the participant’s identity and educational and professional background.
Contact Level
We utilized the Level-of-Contact Report developed by Holmes et al. (1999), which was originally adapted from other scales that measured self-reported stigma based on intimacy contact, familiarity, or degree of interaction with individuals with severe mental illness. The original measure included 12 situations that varied from least interactive contact (e.g., “I have never observed a person that I was aware had a mental illness”) to greatest interactive contact (e.g., “I have a severe mental illness”), and participants were asked to select any number of situations that they experienced in their lifetime. Holmes et al. (1999) reported an interrater reliability of 0.83, representing the mean of the rank order correlations for the measure.
We modified the measure to include a total of 10 situations (statements) that represented the degree of the participant’s perceived contact with undocumented students in their schools and communities. Sample items included: “I have never observed a person or student that I was aware was undocumented” (score of 1) and “My job includes providing services to persons or students who are undocumented” (score of 7). Although the original scale included 12 situations, we removed two of the greatest contact situations to further protect the anonymity of the participants due to the vulnerable nature of undocumented individuals. Consistent with the original instructions of the scale, participants were asked to read each statement and select those statements that represent their level of interaction with students who are undocumented in their schools and communities. We reviewed these data to determine each participant’s highest (or most interaction) experience as their index score.
Based on the original scoring process, the situations were ranked from least interaction (score of 1) to most interaction (score of 10). A higher score denoted more interactive contact with undocumented students experienced by the participant. The score of the most interactive situation, as selected by the participant, was used as their index score. Therefore, the index score reflected the most interactive scenario selected, which represented the participant’s degree of contact with undocumented students. The results of the selection process yielded ordinal data with scores ranging from 1 to 10, representing the low to high contact levels. Internal consistency reliability scores were not calculable for this measure.
Perceived Competence
To examine school counselors’ perceived competence in working with undocumented students, we utilized a modified version of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Development of Clinical Skills Scale (LGBT-DOCSS) by Bidell (2017). The LGBT-DOCSS is originally an 18-item self-report and interdisciplinary scale for health and mental health care providers to measure their clinical skills or level of competence in working with LGBT populations. The LGBT-DOCSS was adapted from revisions of the Sexual Orientation Counselor Competency Scale (SOCCS; Bidell, 2005). Bidell (2017) utilized an exploratory factor analysis to produce three factors: clinical preparedness (i.e., clinical experiences, training and supervision, assessment skills, and general feelings of competence with LGBT populations), attitudinal awareness (i.e., awareness of prejudicial biases toward LGBT populations), and knowledge (i.e., knowledge of health disparities experienced by LGBT populations). Bidell (2017) also reported that a confirmatory factor analysis provided support for a three-factor model. Moreover, these three factors from Bidell (2017) align with the foundational definition of multicultural competence (i.e., knowledge, awareness, and skills or strategies) in school counseling practice in which school counselors are trained to serve the diverse needs of all students (Holcomb-McCoy, 2005).
Of the 18 items, eight items were reverse scored. The total mean score and subscale scores were then calculated by adding and dividing the total by the number of questions, respectively (Bidell, 2017). The items were based on a 7-point Likert-type scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Somewhat Agree/Disagree (4) to Strongly Agree (7). Higher scores denoted higher levels of clinical preparedness to work with LGBT clients and knowledge of LGBT health disparities, as well as more positive and less prejudicial attitudes toward LGBT clients and care. Sample items from the original scale include: “I would feel unprepared talking with a LGBT client/patient about issues related to their sexual orientation or gender identity” and “I would be morally uncomfortable working with a LGBT client/patient.” We modified these items to capture data on undocumented students. The corresponding revised sample items were: “I would feel unprepared talking with an undocumented student about issues related to their immigration status” and “I would be morally uncomfortable working with an undocumented student.” Bidell (2017) reported that the reliability of the overall LGBT-DOCSS was .86. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for scores on the modified LGBT-DOCSS in this study was .82.
Advocacy Activity
We modified the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Advocacy Activity Scale (LGBAAS; Simons et al., 2017) to apply to undocumented populations because no advocacy-related scales specific to undocumented students were available. The LGBAAS measures school counselors’ advocacy activity for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students by denoting their level of familiarity with or use of certain advocacy activities with this population (Simons et al., 2017). The initial version of the LGBAAS was developed in 2015 and included 30 items after being reviewed by a panel of experts (Simons et al., 2017). The scale utilizes a 3-point Likert-type scale, with scores from 0 to 2 (0 = unfamiliar, 1 = familiar, 2 = use), for participants to rate their advocacy activity across three levels: personal (10 items), school (13 items), and community (7 items). Simons et al. (2017) reported a reliability of .94 for the overall scale.
After receiving feedback from the pilot study, we modified the wording on the 3-point scale to: 0 = I am unfamiliar with this practice, 1 = I am familiar with this practice though do not engage in it, 2 = I engage in this practice. A total mean score is utilized to calculate participants’ scores, with a possible range of 0 to 60. Thus, higher scores indicated participants’ use of each advocacy practice, while lower scores indicated unfamiliarity or a lack of use of the practice. Sample items from the original scale included: “I participate in continuing education to improve my ability to promote advocacy for LGB students” and “I assist in promoting policies that foster inclusive school environments for LGB students.” We modified the items to reflect undocumented students; the corresponding modified sample items were: “I participate in continuing education to improve my ability to promote advocacy for undocumented students” and “I assist in promoting policies that foster inclusive school environments for undocumented students.” The internal consistency for scores on the modified LGBAAS in this study was .95.
Data Analysis
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Study Variables
Note. All correlations were significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Diagonals for advocacy and competence are Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency reliability statistics.
Results
We reported descriptive statistics of the participants’ contact level, competence, and advocacy to answer the first research question, Do contact level and competence predict school counselors’ advocacy for undocumented students? For contact level, participants reported a mean score of 6.14 (SD = 2.49, Mdn = 7, Mode = 4, Range = 1–10). Total scores on the modified LGBT-DOCSS for perceived competence revealed an average of 4.47 (SD = 0.75). For the subscales, clinical preparedness was the lowest (M = 3.17, SD = 1.30) followed by knowledge (M = 5.23, SD = 1.23) and attitudinal awareness (M = 6.30, SD = 0.77). Total scores on the modified LGBAAS for advocacy activity revealed a mean of 30.49 (SD = 14.26). Further, in terms of reported hours of training during their school counseling training and/or career that focused on issues related to undocumented students, reported in the demographics questionnaire, almost half of the participants reported not having any training about undocumented students (n = 206; 44.9%), followed by those with few or 1–5 hours of training (n = 139, 30.3%), some or 6–10 hours of training (n = 54; 11.8%), and many or more than 10 hours of training (n = 60, 13.1%).
For the first research question, we applied a standard multiple regression to predict advocacy for undocumented students from contact level and perceived competence. We used the total score on the modified LGBAAS as the outcome variable, with the predictor variables being scores on the modified contact and LGBT-DOCSS measures. The overall model was significant F (2, 455) = 274.82, p < .001, and accounted for 55% of the variance in advocacy (R = .74, R 2 = .55). Both contact level (b = 1.19, SE = 0.20, β = .21, p < .001) and competence (b = 11.83, SE = 0.67, β = .62, p < .001) were significant predictors. See Table 1 for the bivariate correlations of the study variables.
To better understand the predictors’ contributions to the model while accounting for relationships between the predictors, we examined structure coefficients (r s ; Courville & Thompson, 2001). Competence had a structure coefficient of r s = .97, whereas contact level had a structure coefficient of r s = .66. We also examined the semipartial correlations (sr) to examine the unique variance in the outcome variables accounted for by the predictors (Gignac, 2023). Competence produced a semipartial correlation of sr = .56 and contact level produced a semipartial correlation of sr = .19. These findings suggest that although both contact level and competence significantly contribute to advocacy, competence more substantially impacts the advocacy scores in the model.
To answer the second research question, we conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs to examine school counselors’ advocacy for undocumented students based on participants’ self-reported hours of training received on the topic of undocumented students, and on several dimensions included in their personal and professional demographics. We tested the homogeneity of variances by evaluating Levene’s test, which produced nonsignificant values (p values greater than .001), confirming the data met this assumption. To protect from increased Type I error when conducting multiple analyses on the same dependent variable (i.e., advocacy), we tested significant differences using a Bonferroni-adjusted p value of .003. We used eta squared (η 2 ) effect size interpretation (.01 = small, .06 = medium, and .14 = large effect size; Sink & Stroh, 2006).
We found a statistically significant difference in school counselors’ advocacy for undocumented students based on the amount of training received, F (3, 455) = 51.52, p < .001, η 2 = .25. We observed a statistically significant difference (p < .001) in the amount of advocacy based on the hours of training participants reported for the Tukey post-hoc test. Participants with no training (M = 23.28, SD = 12.94) reported statistically significant lower levels of advocacy than those with a few hours (1–5 hours: M = 33.05, SD = 12.72), some hours (6–10 hours: M = 37.54, SD = 11.41), and many hours (11+ hours: M = 42.95, SD = 10.06) of training. Participants reporting a few hours also reported lower advocacy than those with many hours. The findings indicate that school counselors with greater hours of training to help undocumented students exhibited higher advocacy scores than those with no or few hours of training.
Similarly, the percentage of undocumented students served in schools yielded a significant difference in advocacy scores, F (4, 454) = 13.99, p < .001, η 2 = .11 (medium to large effect). Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey indicated statistically significant (p < .001) differences between school counselors that served 0% of undocumented students (M = 23.85, SD = 13.48), compared to those that served any percentage of undocumented students (1%–5%: M = 35.90, SD = 13.33; 6%–10%: M = 39.27, SD = 12.96; 11%+: M = 43.60, SD = 9.00). Participants who were unsure of the percentage of undocumented students served (M = 29.91, SD = 13.85) differed from those who served 0%, 1%–5%, and 11+% of students who were undocumented, but not those serving 6%–10%. The findings revealed that school counselors with greater time spent helping undocumented students exhibited higher advocacy scores than those with no hours of helping undocumented students. Advocacy scores also differed based on political affiliation, F (4, 454) = 9.94, p < .001, η 2 = .08 (medium effect size). School counselors who identified as politically liberal (M = 34.92, SD = 12.16) exhibited higher advocacy scores compared to their politically conservative (M = 25.28, SD = 15.61) counterparts, but no other differences were found.
ANOVA Results for School Counselors’ Advocacy for Undocumented Students Based on Demographic Variables
Note. We found no differences based on gender, age, race, education level, CACREP accreditation, number of years served as school counselor, caseload size, ASCA National Model® implementation, ASCA membership, or U.S. region of employment.
Discussion
We surveyed U.S. school counselors’ contact level, competence, and advocacy when working with undocumented students. Most participants reported an awareness of undocumented students, regardless of whether these students were present in participants’ schools. Consistent with the literature (Crawford & Valle, 2016; Storlie, 2016), a majority of participants reported feeling only somewhat competent to serve undocumented students and having some familiarity with advocacy strategies, which is understandable given almost half of participants reported having received no training about undocumented students. These findings also align with Rodriguez and McCorkle’s (2020) study of teachers, who reported having little knowledge of DACA, being unaware of policies that impact undocumented students, and holding exclusionary attitudes toward undocumented students. Our descriptive findings present a national landscape of school counselors and their preparedness to support undocumented students. When school counselors understand policies affecting undocumented students and receive relevant training, they are more likely to develop inclusive attitudes and advocate for this population (Cisneros & Lopez, 2016; Rodriguez & McCorkle, 2020), thereby strengthening their competence and support.
Our regression analysis revealed that both contact level and perceived competence predicted school counselors’ advocacy practices for undocumented students. Of the two predictors, competence was stronger, accentuating the importance of school counselor’s competence when it comes to engagement in advocacy behaviors. When school counselors advocate for undocumented students across school settings and receive training to enhance their competence to advocate for this population, they can support undocumented students and families in accessing culturally responsive mental health care and academic and postsecondary supports (Crawford & Arnold, 2016).
We also examined whether any differences existed in school counselors’ advocacy engagement for undocumented students based on self-reports of training experiences and on personal and professional demographic variables. A notable finding was a significant difference in school counselors’ advocacy for undocumented students based on the amount of training, with a majority of participants reporting having received no training at all. Specifically, those with more training were more likely to advocate for this population than those with limited or no training. This finding is consistent with the literature about school counselors’ feelings of being unprepared to work with undocumented students due to lack of professional development opportunities (Storlie, 2016). Without such training, school counselors may be unaware, uninformed, or misinformed about the experiences of undocumented students, the state and federal laws that impact them, and needed resources for these students and families.
Another significant finding is that serving a higher percentage of undocumented students in a school generated a stronger level of school counselor advocacy than the level among those serving fewer numbers of undocumented students in their schools. When school counselors have awareness of and contact with this student population, they likely feel more prepared to advocate due to the consistent nature of their interactions with the students and their families. This is consistent with the thematic findings from Crawford et al. (2019) where counselors’ advocacy for undocumented students was focused on forming inclusive and collaborative relationships with this community, bridging the gap to provide resources for this population, and challenging discriminatory practices and policies that affect their well-being.
A novel finding from this study, which previous school counseling literature has not explored, is that school counselors’ self-reported political leanings or affiliations may play a role in their advocacy for undocumented students. Specifically, participants who identified as politically liberal had engaged in advocacy at a higher rate than those who identified as politically conservative, aligning with previous school counseling research that political liberalism may be linked to increased action toward social justice issues (Parikh et al., 2011). Interpreting the reason for this difference is not possible, given the novelty of the findings, but it brings to light a difference in advocacy behavior that future researchers can explore. School counselors have an ethical responsibility, regardless of their own beliefs, values, or political affiliations, to prevent personal biases from impacting their work with students, and to advocate for equitable, anti-oppressive, and antibiased policies to support students’ needs (ASCA, 2021, 2022).
High school counselors reported higher advocacy scores than did elementary school counselors, indicating that high school counselors may be increasingly aware of the pressing needs among adolescents in high school settings. This is a novel finding to be added to the literature, although it should be considered in light of the small to medium effect size in this study. At present, little research has addressed undocumented children’s experiences, although scholars have found that educators generally reported an awareness of the policies impacting K–12 undocumented students and presented more inclusive attitudes toward undocumented students having educational rights (Rodriguez & McCorkle, 2020). As students begin their journeys toward high school graduation and college and career aspirations, school counselors may need more emphasis in training and advocacy, and undocumented students may be more likely to disclose their citizenship status for the purpose of college admissions, financial aid, scholarships, and employment opportunities (Mangual Figueroa, 2017; Murillo, 2017).
Another novel finding from this study was that urbanicity seemed to play a role in school counselors’ advocacy for undocumented students; specifically, school counselors in urban areas reported higher levels of advocacy than those in rural and suburban areas. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution given its small to medium effect size in this study. This finding aligns with national data from the Pew Research Center that unauthorized immigrants largely resided in the 20 major metropolitan areas in the United States (Passel & Cohn, 2019). Thus, because school counselors in urban areas may encounter undocumented students more often than those in rural and suburban areas, they may be positioned to support and advocate. However, school counselors in rural and suburban areas also have a responsibility to serve undocumented populations regardless of contact frequency.
Implications
Considering the increasing presence in U.S. schools of students who may be undocumented or from mixed status families, school counselors must be prepared to support these students and families by building relationships, facilitating community partnerships, and providing resources. The level of school counselors’ direct contact with undocumented students may also influence the level of support they provide. The findings of this study contribute to the broader conversation around advocacy for undocumented youth and their families across the elementary and secondary levels and the importance for school counselors to develop an awareness and competence to ethically and effectively serve this population in their school communities (Gutierrez & Silverio, 2026). Given the absence of specific training standards or requirements for serving undocumented populations, this study offers implications for the training of school counselors, including those preparing to enter the field and current practitioners.
Undocumented students are present in both elementary and secondary schools; notably, most participants in this study were elementary school counselors, a group rarely represented in prior research on undocumented students. We recommend expanding training to be inclusive of elementary school counselors, because training about supporting undocumented students and their families may typically be targeted toward high school counselors to address college and career development. Current school counseling professionals are also encouraged to seek training through professional, community, and online organizations to learn more about the needs and strengths of undocumented students and families. By proxy, this helps mitigate undocumented students’ feelings of vulnerability about disclosing their legal status (Murillo, 2017). Active and informative national organizations may include (but are not limited to) ASCA, Learning for Justice, United We Dream, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Immigrants Rising, and Higher Education Immigration Portal. School counselors can also seek resources connected to their local communities.
Access to a prepared resource guide or knowledge of online resources beyond the local community would be helpful for school counselors, as would building partnerships with higher education institutions to learn about supportive college-readiness resources for undocumented students, such as admissions, tuition support, and scholarship and funding sources (Stone, 2017; Talleyrand & Vojtech, 2019). Also important for school counselors is awareness of political leanings of their local communities because this may impact undocumented individuals’ sense of safety and access to resources. As such, school counselors could consider placing information for undocumented students in areas where both students and families can have access without having to identify themselves (Lawrence, 2014).
Counselor educators play an important role in training and supervising future school counselors to serve undocumented students and can do so through offering continuing education opportunities. This is consistent with the findings of this study in which any amount of training significantly supports school counselors’ advocacy for undocumented populations. Through inclusive curricula and partnerships with schools and districts, counselor educators can facilitate training and site supervision opportunities in graduate counseling programs and local schools and districts to raise awareness of the realistic academic, mental health, postsecondary needs, and advocacy strategies for undocumented students (Cisneros & Lopez, 2016; Groce & Johnson, 2021; Morrison et al., 2016).
Considering the hesitancy and fear often experienced by undocumented students and families, practicing school counselors and school counselor trainees would benefit from training about addressing their own biases and privileges that affect rapport building with those from marginalized backgrounds, and learning culturally sustaining strategies, such as broaching and validation, to serve as bridges to strengthen authentic partnerships with students and families (ASCA, 2022; Gutierrez & Silverio, 2026; Morrison et al., 2016; Murillo, 2017; Talleyrand & Vojtech, 2019). Aragón (2017) suggested that school counselors can express their support by helping to create a family preparedness plan in case immigrant and mixed-status families experience legal or caregiving crises (see Learning for Justice, 2017a) and by communicating flexible availability for private conversations with students and families. Counselor education programs are encouraged to teach general social justice advocacy and advocacy skills to navigate the power structures of school systems (Talleyrand & Vojtech, 2019). Information about undocumented students can also be provided in school counselors’ post-master’s continuing education and training related to undocumented communities in school districts and state or national school counseling professional organizations (Singh et al., 2010).
School counselors in training, school counseling practitioners, and counselor educators alike must be aware of how current federal policies affect the well-being of undocumented youth and families. As advocates, all three groups can learn about current local, national, and international legislation and policies that are actively impacting undocumented individuals’ access to safety, employment, and mental healthcare (ASCA, 2022; Pearson, 2025; Rodriguez & McCorkle, 2020). Also important is understanding the rights and responsibilities in supporting undocumented students and families, such as accessing a readily available guide for educators from Learning for Justice (see Learning for Justice, 2017b).
As such, it behooves school counselors to understand the mental health concerns of undocumented students (e.g., depression, anxiety and worry, acculturation, discrimination; Gutierrez & Silverio, 2026; Talleyrand & Vojtech, 2019) and have an accurate understanding of the sociopolitical realities about and experiences of undocumented students and their families (Cisneros & Lopez, 2016; Rodriguez & McCorkle, 2020). Further, school counselors can learn how to provide support and create a welcoming and caring school culture in which all administrators, staff, and school counselors are trained to support immigration-impacted youth. For example, school counselors are encouraged to be aware of undocumented students in their own school communities, express their allyship by posting stickers, posters, or pamphlets (e.g., Know Your Rights cards; see Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2023) in their offices to identify safe spaces for students, and send home up-to-date information about the school’s response to and families’ preparation for potentially navigating issues with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (Aragón, 2017), especially considering the changing nature of policies and resources. Due to the possibility that all school staff may not be allies for undocumented students, school counselors can also identify resources within the school community that can provide support, such as translation services, student organizations, and group counseling opportunities as sources of safety (Talleyrand & Vojtech, 2019).
Limitations and Future Research
Although this study attempted to acquire a nationally representative sample of school counselors in the United States, we note that the findings may not necessarily be generalizable to the entire population of school counseling professionals, considering the low response rate for online surveys generally in counseling research (Granello & Wheaton, 2003; Poynton et al., 2019). This sample did not include participants who worked in private or other nonpublic school settings, and was less representative of school counselors in urban areas and northeastern and western regions of the United States, where undocumented students and families may be located. Another consideration is that the participants were encouraged to report an approximate percentage of undocumented and/or DACA students on their caseloads, if known, but many were unable or chose not to report a percentage. The school counselors who did report a percentage may have underreported, considering the often hidden identities of these students and the need to prioritize their safety and well-being. Further, questions related to participants’ training about undocumented students received during their master’s program or post-master’s experience may present another limitation because type of and access to training may vary depending on whether or when training was received.
Despite receiving approval from the original authors of the scales and incorporating feedback from an expert panel, the modified measures utilized in this study may still serve as a limitation because these scales were not originally designed with undocumented student populations in mind. The surveys also use self-report; thus participants may have responded based on social desirability, considering the politicized and sensitive topic and population of study. The self-reported nature and Likert-type scaling format of the surveys also might not fully capture participants’ nuanced understandings and experiences of contact level, competence, and advocacy with undocumented students. Participants were also asked to complete 74 total items, including demographic questions, which may have contributed to fatigue and attrition due to the overall survey length.
Future research can explore specific culturally responsive and trauma-informed strategies and interventions that school counselors can use to advocate for undocumented students and their families and support their mental health across elementary and secondary levels (Gutierrez & Silverio, 2026). Exploring how school counselors offer academic, social/emotional, and college and career services to support undocumented students by grade levels can clarify commonly known resources to support this community and highlight gaps about needed resources. With federal orders and guidelines about undocumented individuals changing over the years, additional research can include effective professional development programs that enhance school counselors’ knowledge about national and state level administration updates, and competence and advocacy for undocumented students (Pearson, 2025). Furthermore, this study can be conducted with school counselors in training in graduate programs to gauge their preparedness, motivation, and self-efficacy to serve undocumented students. It can also extend to other school and community stakeholders and helping professionals to understand their levels of contact, competence, and advocacy for this vulnerable population.
Conclusion
The findings of this study shed light on the national landscape of school counselors’ contact level, competence, and advocacy for undocumented students, and it is the first study to examine school counselors’ preparedness and desire to support this population. We found that most school counselors had minimal to no training about undocumented students, and when school counselors interact with and have a greater sense of competence and training to work with undocumented students, they are increasingly likely to advocate for this population. With these findings in mind and considering the increasing opportunities to come into contact with undocumented students and families, it is essential for school counselors to have access to training and professional development to effectively serve and advocate for this population and deliver culturally responsive mental health care and academic and postsecondary support.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.