Cisneros, J., & Cadenas, G. (2017).

DREAMer-Ally Competency and Self-Efficacy: Developing Higher Education Staff and Measuring Lasting
Outcomes.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(2), 189–203.
ISSN: 1949-6591 (print)/1949-6605 (online)

Innovation in Practice Feature

DREAMer-Ally Competency and

Self-Efficacy: Developing Higher Education
Staff and Measuring Lasting Outcomes
Jesus Cisneros, University of Central Arkansas
German Cadenas, Arizona State University

DREAMzone is an educational intervention designed to increase higher

education professionals’ competency and self-efficacy for working with
undocumented students. Grounded in social learning theory, we devel-
oped the DREAMer-ally instrument to investigate the effects of
DREAMzone on DREAMer-ally competency and self-efficacy. Findings
support the notion that DREAMzone positively improves participants’
DREAMer-ally competency and self-efficacy. This study serves as one of
the first to provide evidence supporting educational interventions aimed at
improving undocumented students’ higher education experiences.

In 2013, there were more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United
States (Zong & Betalova, 2016). Each year, nearly 80,000 turn 18, and an estimated 65,000 are
expected to graduate from high school (Gonzáles, 2009; Passel, 2003). Though higher education
serves as a pathway for upward mobility, state policies that prevent undocumented immigrants
from applying for in-state tuition status, state-based financial aid, or college admission altogether
often lead to premature disengagement from educational pursuits (Gildersleeve, Rumann, &
Mondragon, 2010; Gonzáles, 2009, 2010; Martinez, 2014). Undocumented students, conse-
quently, have greater high school dropout rates and lower college attendance rates than their
authorized immigrant counterparts (Dougherty, Nienhusser, & Vega, 2010; Flores & Chapa,
2009; Teranishi, Suárez-Orozco, & Suárez-Orozco, 2011). Between 5 to 10% of undocumented
students are estimated to enroll in a college or university, and of these students, only 1% will
graduate (Passel, 2003; Russel, 2011).
In 2012, President Obama introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
program, an executive action that provided an opportunity for a qualified segment of the
undocumented immigrant population to receive a renewable work permit and temporary reprieve
from deportation (Gonzáles, Terriquez, & Ruszczyk, 2014). DACA is unique among immigration
policies in its focus on educational attainment as a condition for eligibility. Among its require-
ments, applicants must have graduated from high school, passed the GED exam, or be currently

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jesus Cisneros, University of Central Arkansas.
Email: jesuscisneros5@gmail.com

JSARP 2017, 54(2) © NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 189

DREAMer-Ally

enrolled in and attending school. DACA has reactivated the educational dreams and aspirations of
many by incentivizing them to return to school and potentially transition to higher education
(Hooker, McHugh, & Mathay, 2015). It has significantly improved the job and educational
prospects of qualified undocumented immigrants and reduced some of their challenges for
achieving social and economic incorporation (Hooker et al., 2015). Beneficiaries report greater
access to U.S. institutions, internships, work opportunities, and eligibility for state IDs and driver’s
licenses—leading to improved opportunities for college access, retention, and completion
(Gonzáles et al., 2014). As of June 2016, over 1,500,000 DACA applications have been received,
including 741,546 approved initial applications and 526,288 approved renewals (USCIS, 2016).
These numbers, in addition to the explicit connection between educational attainment and
immigration relief, challenge educators to become familiar with the struggles of undocumented
students and proactive in ensuring their academic success.
Despite the relative protections of DACA, for example, undocumented students continue to
report being treated unfairly or negatively on campus as a result of their immigration status (Suárez-
Orozco et al., 2015). Fear is reported as the single most debilitating factor within undocumented
students’ college experience, producing higher than average levels of anxiety and stress (Gonzáles,
2010; Pérez, Cortes, Ramos, & Coronado, 2010; Suárez-Orozco, Yoshikawa, Teranishi, & Suárez-
Orozco, 2011). Students describe how experiences where their needs are not met, support is not
provided, and information is not allocated result in a sense of isolation and an unwillingness to seek
advisement or support from campus personnel (Contreras, 2009; Gonzáles, 2009; Hernandez et al.,
2010; Pérez et al., 2010; Pérez, Espinoza, Ramos, Coronado, & Cortes, 2009; Stebleton & Aleixo,
2015; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). These students constantly battle feelings of criminality, invisibility,
and uncertainty as a result of their immigration status. Additionally, immigration status may not be the
only source of institutionalized oppression that undocumented students face.
The overall lack of commitment by institutions to serve undocumented students contributes to the
hostile and difficult institutional environments that often prevent students from seeking and obtaining
the support they need (Contreras, 2009; Jauregui & Slate, 2010; Muñoz, 2015; Pérez & Cortes, 2011;
Pérez et al., 2009). Though institutions play a key role in helping students locate resources necessary to
achieve their educational goals (Diaz-Strong, Gomez, Luna-Duarte, & Meiners, 2011), campus
personnel often do not receive the training or support needed to work with undocumented immigrants.
This issue is important, given that campus personnel play a critical role for students seeking support
and information related to their undocumented status as it relates to financial aid, admissions, and
career opportunities (Contreras, 2009; Muñoz & Maldonado, 2012; Pérez, Muñoz, Alcantar, &
Guarneros, 2011). It is often only with the assistance of institutional agents that undocumented
students can learn to strategically navigate their college-going experiences (Pérez et al., 2010). The lack
of training and support needed to assist undocumented students asserts there is a need within the
higher education community for on-going dialogue to better prepare higher education professionals
and student affairs practitioners for working with undocumented students (Gildersleeve & Vigil, 2015;
Herrera, Garibay, Garcia, & Johnston, 2013; Pérez et al., 2010, 2009; Pérez & Rodríguez, 2011;
Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). In this study, we were interested in addressing this need by investigating
an accessible and replicable intervention that acknowledges the important role of institutional agents
for responding to the presence and needs of undocumented students.

Dreamzone
In 2012, a group of undocumented students and scholar practitioners at a public institution in
Arizona introduced DREAMzone, an educational intervention designed to provide institutional

190 doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA JSARP 2017, 54(2)

 DREAMer-Ally

agents with awareness, knowledge, and skills for responding to the presence and needs of
undocumented students. DREAMzone emerged in response to the state’s stance of attrition
through enforcement. The passage of laws like Proposition 300, Senate Bill 1070, and House
Bill 2008 have instilled fear and mistrust among undocumented immigrants for engaging with
public institutions and their agents (Lopez, 2011; Menjívar & Abrego, 2012; Watson, Howard-
Wagner, & Spanierman, 2016). Through competency and self-efficacy development,
DREAMzone seeks to empower institutional agents to make educationally sound decisions
about advocating with and for undocumented students to negotiate solutions to the barriers and
challenges they face.
As a four-hour professional development training, DREAMzone encompasses four learning
outcomes: (a) awareness of one’s thoughts and feelings regarding undocumented students,
(b) knowledge of laws and policies affecting the experiences of undocumented students, (c) direct
contact with undocumented students, and (d) skills, practices, and resources for working with
undocumented students. These learning outcomes are grounded by the tripartite model of cultural
competence (Sue et al., 1982), which emphasizes the importance of integrating awareness, knowl-
edge, and skills for working with others who are culturally different from one’s self. By con-
textualizing what they observe, deepening their understanding, and enhancing their ability to work
with undocumented students, the tripartite model seeks to move participants to a level where they
are able to engage in culturally responsive practice and critical reflective thinking.
To date, DREAMzone has trained over 2,000 participants and has been recognized at the
local, state, and national level, including the Clinton Global Initiative University in 2013, for its
innovative approach to addressing global challenges and societal needs. Trainings are hosted on a
monthly basis and are facilitated by undocumented students and allies. Though trainings target
helping professionals in college settings, they are also open to K–12 professionals and teacher
preparation programs.

Social Learning and Social Cognitive Theory

To investigate the effects of DREAMzone, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977a) served as
a sound theoretical framework. Social learning theory (SLT) posits learning takes place by
observation and instruction in social contexts. More specifically, SLT highlights how the triadic
interaction between environmental influences, personal factors, and behavior is reciprocal, thereby
influencing one another continuously. At the heart of personal factors are cognitions, particularly
perceived beliefs about one’s own capabilities to engage in a particular behavior, also known as self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1977b, 1986). Self-efficacy is hypothesized to affect behavior initiation, dura-
tion, and effort, as well as its impact on other determinants (Bandura, 1977b, 1997). Individuals
with a high sense of self-efficacy are more likely to approach more challenging tasks, put forth
more effort, and persist longer in the face of stressful stimuli (Bandura, 1977b, 1986).
Self-efficacy is of utmost importance to supporting undocumented students, given
previous studies’ findings that often what prevents staff from supporting undocumented
students is their belief that they do not have the expertise to do so (Canedo Sanchez &
So, 2015). Having self-efficacy to perform these behaviors may be necessary for successful
performance as an ally. Four specific types of learning experiences serve as mechanisms to
increase individuals’ self-efficacy: (a) performance accomplishment or engaging in the beha-
vior, (b) vicarious learning or seeing how others engage in the behavior, (c) verbal persuasion
or positive feedback from others about one’s capabilities, and (d) emotional/physiological
arousal or the emotions and physiological states experienced when engaging in a behavior

JSARP 2017, 54(2) © NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 191

DREAMer-Ally

(Bandura, 1977b, 1986, 1997, 2000). DREAMzone uses didactic and hands-on learning
that maps onto each of these four sources of self-efficacy.

Pedagogy
DREAMzone begins by challenging participants to assess what they know about undocu-
mented immigrants and identify stereotypes, biases, or culturally based assumptions. Facilitators
provide counternarratives based on research and reports to help dispel some of the most common
myths and increase participants’ awareness of their own attitudes, values, beliefs, and assumptions
about undocumented immigrants. The training then focuses on background information and
content knowledge that need to be considered when working with undocumented students. The
purpose of this section is to increase participants’ knowledge about federal and state laws and
policies affecting the experiences of undocumented students. This content knowledge is supple-
mented with student narratives via a panel of undocumented students, which helps contextualize
undocumented students’ experiences. Having direct contact and dialogue with undocumented
students provides participants with opportunities for self-reflection, empathy development, and
growth toward cultural competence.
The last section of DREAMzone focuses on skills and emphasizes how practitioners across
institutions are engaging in undocu-friendly behavior, despite the limiting contexts of state and
federal law. Drawing from statistics, policy, and legislation, in addition to student narratives,
participants are challenged to identify ways in which their own institutions can improve the
availability of student support services for undocumented students by taking issues of campus
climate, civic engagement, and financial aid into consideration. Participants are broken up into
small groups and led to respond to case study scenarios whereby peers provide performance
appraisal and share their own experiences responding to similar situations. Following this discus-
sion, participants are asked to identify and write down one immediate action they will take
following the training to improve undocumented students’ experiences on campus. Allowing
participants to select and organize skills, knowledge, and resources into an integrated course of
action, these activities support participants’ self-efficacy development through competent perfor-
mance (Bandura & Schunk, 1981).

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to test the short-term and long-term effect of
DREAMzone on improving participants’ competency and self-efficacy for working with
undocumented students. Campus administrators are challenged by the inherent ambiguities
that exist when seeking to negotiate the educational value of inclusion, with politics and
public policy and popular sentiments that fuel contentious environments (Barnhardt,
Phillips, Young, & Sheets, 2017). Though few institutions have begun to respond to the
increasing presence of undocumented students by developing educational interventions that
seek to increase practitioners’ knowledge, skills, and awareness (e.g., AB 540 Ally Training,
Undocumented Students Program, UndocuAlly, UndocuPeers), no study to date has exam-
ined the effectiveness of these interventions for improving participants’ competency and self-
efficacy for working with undocumented students. Understanding the effects of educational
interventions aimed at supporting undocumented students has the potential to inform
institutional responses to issues of immigration. The following research questions guided
our study:

192 doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA JSARP 2017, 54(2)

 DREAMer-Ally

1. How effective is an educational intervention (i.e., DREAMzone) on improving participants’

self-efficacy for working with undocumented students?
2. How effective is an educational intervention (i.e., DREAMzone) on improving participants’
competencies for working with undocumented students?

Methodology
Participants
Included in this study was a sample of 520 DREAMzone participants at a large, public,
research institution in Arizona who completed a pre- and post-assessment; 150 who completed a
pre-, post-, and two-month follow-up assessment; and 55 who completed a pre-, post-, two-
month, and eight-month follow-up assessment. University staff (66%) represented the majority of
participants, followed by college students (16.5%), community affiliates (7.5%), and faculty (4.2%).
The majority of participants were women (71%) and U.S. citizens (93.1%), and indicated that
their race was White (54%); Latino/a/Chicano/a/Hispanic (24.6%); Biracial or Multiracial (6.7%);
Black or African American (5.8%); Asian or Pacific Islander (5.4%); and American Indian or
Alaskan Native (0.6%).

Handling Missing Data

Initially, 587 participants completed the pre-assessments, 567 completed the post-assessment,
223 completed the electronic two-month follow-up assessment, and 141 completed the electronic
eight-month follow-up assessment. We excluded participants who provided values outside of the
scale response ranges and participants who were missing data on any of the scales. Participants
who did not provide responses during each of the four administrations (Pre-, Post-, 2-month, and
8-month) were also excluded, which led to the final sample groups.

Instruments
Demographic Survey. Participants completed a brief demographic survey to capture
information such as gender, age, race/ethnicity, income level, education level, nationality,
residency status, and institutional affiliation. These descriptors were used to understand the
make-up of DREAMzone participants.
DREAMer-Ally. We designed a 10-item instrument with the intent of tapping onto two
cognitive and behavioral dimensions of being an ally for undocumented students: competency
and self-efficacy. Items were developed in consultation with experts in the field of counseling
psychology and were pre-tested in Fall 2012 among a sample of 100 participants. Total scores
ranged from 10 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher ability to be an ally for undocumented
students based on perceived competency and self-efficacy to work with them. The 10-item scale
indicated adequate internal consistency reliability at Pre-α = 0.799; Post-α = 0.879; 2-month
α = 0.847; and 8-month α = 0.846.
DREAMer-Ally Competency. We created a subscale using a 4-point Likert-type response
format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to assess participants’ competencies
for working with undocumented students. Scores ranged from 6 to 24, with higher scores
indicating higher competency working with undocumented students. Sample items include, “I
am informed about the federal and state policies affecting the undocumented student experience,”
and “I am aware of resources available specifically for undocumented students.” Together, the six
items conceptually describe the DREAMzone learning outcomes and reflect the competencies

JSARP 2017, 54(2) © NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 193

DREAMer-Ally

required for working with others who are culturally different from one’s self, as illustrated by the
tripartite model of cultural competence (Sue et al., 1982). Internal consistency estimates for the
competency subscale were Pre-α = 0.775; Post-α = 0.867; 2-month α = 0.850; and 8-month
α = 0.819, indicating adequate internal consistency across time.
DREAMer-Ally Self-Efficacy. We created a subscale to measure participants’ perceived self-
efficacy to improve the campus climate for undocumented students. The subscale consisted of 4
items using a 4-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (nothing) to 4 (a lot). Subscale
scores ranged from 4 to 16, with higher scores indicating higher confidence in ability to work with
undocumented students. Sample items include, “How much can you do to make your institution a
safe place for undocumented students?,” and “How much can you help other students, staff, faculty
or administrators better serve undocumented students?” Item development followed Bandura’s
(2006) Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, and adapted relevant components of that scale to working
with undocumented students within the context of higher education. Internal consistency
estimates for the self-efficacy subscale were Pre-α = 0.844; Post-α = 0.865; 2-month α = 0.828;
and 8-month α = 0.788, which indicate adequate internal consistency.

Procedures
All data were collected from January 2013 to May 2014 via DREAMzone workshops at a
large public institution of higher education in Arizona. Participants either self-registered or were
required to attend DREAMzone as part of their job training in student services units
(e.g., counseling services, career services, housing, study abroad). Upon arrival to the workshop,
participants were instructed to complete a pre-assessment. At the end of the workshop, partici-
pants were asked to complete a post-assessment. All DREAMzone participants, regardless of their
participation in the pre- and post-assessments, were invited to participate in online follow-up
assessments two months and eight months after their workshop attendance date.

Analytic Strategy
The data were analyzed for skewness and kurtosis to determine whether they were normally
distributed. Next, the data were submitted through the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy to determine whether the data were
appropriate for factor analysis. Items were then submitted to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
using the principal axis ractoring (PAF) method and rotated with oblimin rotation procedures. An
oblique rotation was selected as it was the most general in that it involved no restrictions on the
relation of the factors and was most likely to reveal the structure in the data. Kaiser’s (1960)
criterion for factors with an eigenvalue > 1 and the scree test (Cattell, 1966) were used as methods
to determine the number of factors to extract.
To test the effectiveness of the intervention, we examined whether there would be a significant
difference between test administrations using a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, with the
factor being the administration (Pre-, Post-, 2-month, 8-month) and the dependent variable being
the competency and self-efficacy scores. Paired sample t-tests were used to investigate mean
differences between administrations, while the Holm’s sequential Bonferroni procedure was used
to establish appropriate alphas for the multiple comparisons, given the probability of Type I error.

Limitations
Several limitations merit attention when considering these findings. The principal limitation
of the study is the findings are specific to one institution and are not necessarily transferable to

194 doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA JSARP 2017, 54(2)

 DREAMer-Ally

other institutional settings. Given how the study took place in Arizona, a border state region
exposed on a long-term basis to hostile community attitudes toward undocumented immigrants,
the results may not be generalizable to individuals residing in other regions of the country
otherwise not sensitized to immigration issues. Relatedly, because DREAMzone targets higher
education practitioners, the sample also consisted of a sizable proportion of women (71%). Thus,
the findings may not be generalizable to samples with a greater proportion of men. Similarly,
because the sample comprised mostly White (54%) and Latino/a/Chicano/a/Hispanic (24.6%)
individuals, findings may not be generalizable to other racial and ethnic groups. Given the
longitudinal nature of the study, high attrition reduced our sample from 520 participants at pre-
test to 55 at 8 months. Results provide only a snapshot of emerging patterns over time with a
limited sample size.

Results
DREAMer-Ally Instrument
Results for skewness and kurtoisis showed the absolute skewness value ranged from -0.544 to
0.323 and the absolute kurtosis value ranged from -0.782 to 1.13. The data generally conformed to
the assumption of normality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Next,
we tested the data for use in EFA. The Bartlett’s Test (χ2 [45] = 1882.58, p = 0.000) and the
KMO measure of sampling adequacy (0.805) indicated the data were appropriate for factor
analysis.
Items were submitted to exploratory factor analysis using the principal axis factoring (PAF)
method and rotated with oblimin rotation procedures. Kaiser’s (1960) criterion for factors with an
eigenvalue > 1 indicated a two-factor solution. Review of the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) further
suggested two factors. These two factors were interpretable conceptually, as they were in line with
the factor structure that we hypothesized when designing the items. We named Factor 1
DREAMer-ally competency and Factor 2 DREAMer-ally self-efficacy (see Appendix A).
The two-factor model accounted for 56.07% of the total variance with the following factor
variance amounts: DREAMer-ally competency (F1) = 35.99%, DREAMer-ally self-efficacy
(F2) = 20.08%. The pattern matrix showed appropriate loadings for all items. Loading coefficients
were on the appropriate factors and loaded with significant weights (> 0.40). The results showed
the skewness value for the competency scale (F1) ranged from -0.544 to 0.323 and the kurtosis
value ranged from -0.782 to 1.13. Skewness value results for the self-efficacy scale (F2) ranged
from -0.404 to 0.322 and the kurtosis value ranged from -0.101 to .213. Results from this
exploratory factor analysis provide initial evidence for a two-factor structure of the new
DREAMer-ally instrument.

DREAMzone Effects
The first group comparison analysis included the entire spectrum of responses for all four
administrations (Pre-, Post-, 2-month, 8-month). The sample size for this test was n = 55. A one-
way within subjects ANOVA was conducted with the factor being the administration (Pre-, Post-,
2-month, 8-month) and the dependent variable being the competency and self-efficacy scores.
The results for the competency scale ANOVA indicated a significant effect for time, Wilks’
λ = 0.201, F(3, 52) = 69.015, p < 0.000, multivariate η2 = 0.799. The results for the self-efficacy
scale ANOVA showed a significant effect for time as well, Wilks’ λ = 0.612, F(3, 52) = 10.97,
p < 0.000, multivariate η2 = 0.388.

JSARP 2017, 54(2) © NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 195

DREAMer-Ally

Following the significant ANOVA, paired sample t-tests were performed to investigate mean
differences between administrations. Taking Type I error into consideration, the Holm’s sequen-
tial Bonferroni procedure was used to establish appropriate alphas for the multiple comparisons.
The significant positive time effects for competency were Pre- to Post-, Pre- to 2-month, Pre- to
8-month, and Post- to 8-month. Post- to 2-month was not significant. The statistically significant
positive time effects for self-efficacy were Pre- to Post-, Pre- to 2-month, Post- to 2-month, Post-
to 8-month, and 2-month to 8-month. Pre- to 8-month was positive but not significant.
The second comparison group analysis included the entire spectrum of responses for the
first three administrations (Pre-, Post-, 2-month). The sample size for this test was n = 150.
The results for the competency scale ANOVA indicated a significant effect, Wilks’ λ = 0.219,
F(2, 148) = 264.228, p < 0.000, multivariate η2 = 0.781. The results for the self-efficacy scale
ANOVA indicated a significant effect, Wilks’ λ = 0.646, F(2, 148) = 40.464, p < 0.000,
multivariate η2 = 0.354. Performing paired sample t-tests and Holm’s sequential Bonferroni
procedure, there were significant positive time effects for competency and self-efficacy at Pre-
to Post-, Pre- to 2-month, and Post- to 2-month.
The third comparison group analysis included the entire spectrum of responses for the
first two administrations (Pre-, Post-). The sample size for this test was n = 520. The results
for the competency scale ANOVA indicated a significant effect, Wilks’ λ = 0.249,
F(1, 519) = 1568.714, p < 0.000, multivariate η2 = 0.751. The results for the self-efficacy
scale ANOVA also indicated a significant effect, Wilks’ λ = 0.690, F(1, 519) = 40.464,
p < 0.000, multivariate η2 = 0.310. Performing paired sample t-tests and using the Holm’s
sequential Bonferroni procedure, significant positive effects for competency and self-efficacy
were identified at Pre- to Post-. The means and standard deviations for the four adminis-
trations are presented in Table 1, while the time effects for competency and self-efficacy are
presented in Table 2.

Discussion
Exploratory factor analysis suggested a two-factor solution for the DREAMer-ally scale.
DREAMer-ally competency was the first factor and represented the intended learning outcomes
of DREAMzone: (a) awareness of one’s thoughts and feelings regarding undocumented students,
(b) knowledge of laws and policies affecting the experiences of undocumented students, (c) direct
contact with undocumented students, and (d) skills, practices, and resources for working with
undocumented students. DREAMer-ally self-efficacy was the second factor, and represented
participants’ perceived capability to improve undocumented students’ experiences of the campus
environment. Findings of our study provide initial evidence for the underlying structure of a
DREAMer-ally scale that taps into dimensions of DREAMer-ally competency and self-efficacy.
Results from repeated measures ANOVA and paired sample t-tests across time indicated that
DREAMzone as an intervention produced a positive effect for the DREAMer-ally competency
measure at the Post-, 2-month, and 8-month marks. On the other hand, though the DREAMer-
ally self-efficacy measure was also positively significant at the Post- and 2-month mark, it showed
no significance at the 8-month mark. These results suggest that though participants may feel
competent to work with undocumented students even eight months after the intervention, other
factors may impede them from feeling capable of improving the campus climate over time. Given
the immigrant-hostile sociopolitical context of the state (e.g., Arizona Senate Bill 1070) and due
to lack of continued support beyond DREAMzone, a four-hour workshop is unlikely to have been

196 doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA JSARP 2017, 54(2)

 DREAMer-Ally

Table 1
Means and standard deviations of DREAMer-ally competency and self-efficacy scores

Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3

(n = 55) (n = 150) (n = 520)

M SD M SD M SD
Pre-
(C) 15.345 3.092 15.233 2.783 15.076 3.062
(SE) 12.745 1.848 12.640 2.079 12.523 2.221
Post-
(C) 21.181 2.427 20.893 2.394 20.482 2.588
(SE) 14.272 1.860 14.140 1.783 14.023 1.905
2-month
(C) 20.709 2.362 19.746 2.436
(SE) 13.618 1.715 13.200 1.882
8-month
(C) 20.145 2.606
(SE) 13.109 1.706

Note. (C) = Competency, (SE) = Self-Efficacy

able to counteract the ongoing impact of such an environment on participants’ self-efficacy,

particularly if the campus climate does not reinforce their ally behavior.
Despite the attrition in our sample number at each administration, these patterns were
detectable and remained consistent over time (see Figure 1). These results support our impression
that DREAMzone is effective for increasing practitioners’ competency and self-efficacy for work-
ing with undocumented students in the short-term. These results are encouraging, as they provide
initial evidence that educational interventions such as DREAMzone, designed to provide parti-
cipants with relevant learning experiences, may indeed be effective in facilitating short-term
cognitive change to sensitize practitioners to respond competently and efficaciously to the needs
of undocumented students. This finding is important, as it demonstrates that in order to create
more supportive environments for undocumented students we need to provide ongoing support for
higher education professionals.
Our findings support research on institutional ally trainings that focus on a similarly disen-
franchised student population: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students. This
research illustrates how educational workshops, skills training, and ongoing activities combined
with visible support structures have a high potential to develop more positive institutional
responses toward students (Payne & Smith, 2011; Poynter & Tubbs, 2007; Ratts et al., 2013;
Woodford, Kolb, Durocher-Radeka, & Javier, 2014). Participation in ally training programs, for
example, has been related to supportive attitudes toward LGBT students (Worthen, 2011), where
staff often felt more empowered to address LGBT issues on campus as a result of their participa-
tion (Payne & Smith, 2011). Findings of the current study show that an educational intervention
with a different focus, undocumented students, may demonstrate similar types of positive effects,
at least at the cognitive level.

JSARP 2017, 54(2) © NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 197

DREAMer-Ally

Table 2
Paired samples t-tests for DREAMer-ally competency and self-efficacy

Time Mean diff. SD t d p

Comparison 1
(n = 55) Pre- to Post-
(C) −5.836 2.986 −14.495 1.990 0.000*
(SE) −1.527 2.089 −5.421 0.731 0.000*
Pre- to 2-month
(C) −5.363 3.346 −11.887 1.628 0.000*
(SE) −0.872 2.219 −2.916 0.394 0.005*
Pre- to 8-month
(C) −4.800 3.363 −10.584 1.437 0.000*
(SE) −0.363 2.263 −1.191 0.161 0.239
Post- to 2-month
(C) 0.472 2.379 1.473 0.199 0.146
(SE) 0.654 1.817 2.670 0.385 0.010*
Post- to 8-month
(C) 1.036 2.700 2.846 0.384 0.006*
(SE) 1.163 2.106 4.097 0.553 0.000*
2 month to 8-month
(C) 0.563 2.678 1.560 0.211 0.125
(SE) 0.509 1.464 2.579 0.348 0.013*
Comparison 2
(n = 150) Pre- to Post-
(C) −5.660 3.016 −22.982 1.887 0.000*
(SE) −1.500 2.188 −8.395 0.690 0.000*
Pre- to 2-month
(C) −4.513 3.176 −17.402 1.426 0.000*
(SE) −-.560 2.077 −3.302 0.271 0.001*
Post- to 2-month
(C) 1.146 2.420 5.803 0.474 0.000*
(SE) 0.940 1.703 6.758 0.552 0.000*
Comparison 3
(n = 520) Pre- to Post-
(C) −5.405 3.112 −39.607 1.751 0.000*
(SE) −1.500 2.238 −15.282 0.675 0.000*

Note. (C) = Competency, (SE) = Self-Efficacy; * = significant using the Holm’s sequential Bonferroni procedure

Though immigrant-hostile sociopolitical contexts have the potential to create anxiety and uncer-
tainty amongst practitioners, forcing some to support in the shadows of the institution (Chen &
Rhoads, 2016), campus interventions like DREAMzone may provide for improved student support

198 doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA JSARP 2017, 54(2)

 DREAMer-Ally

Figure 1. Mean scores over time.

Compentency Mean Scores Over Time

22
21
20
Mean Score

19
18
17
16
15
14
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Pre-, Post-, 2-month, 8-month Pre-, Post-, 2-month Pre-, Post-

Self-Efficacy Mean Scores Over Time

15

14
Mean Score

13

12
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Pre-, Post-, 2-month, 8-month Pre-, Post-, 2-month Pre-, Post-

services by developing practitioners’ competency and self-efficacy for working with undocumented
students. This study stresses the importance of preparing practitioners to be able to answer questions
and respond knowledgeably to the needs of undocumented students on campus. Policymakers are
clearly making the connection between citizenship and education with programs like DACA and
proposed DREAM Act legislation. Because education serves as an eligibility requirement for each of
these policies, a college degree is especially important for this group. Undocumented students will
presumably be first “in line” should comprehensive immigration reform occur. Campus interventions
like DREAMzone, therefore, enhance the educational opportunities available to undocumented
students by improving the visibility of support structures on campus. Further, they provide opportu-
nities to transform the ways campus personnel think about diversity on campus, and the types of
professional development support that practitioners need.

JSARP 2017, 54(2) © NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 199

DREAMer-Ally

Implications for Research

Our study provided initial evidence for the two-factor structure of the 10-item DREAMer-
ally scale, which was designed to measure competency for working with undocumented students
and self-efficacy for improving the campus climate. Future investigations would contribute to this
body of work using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques to further validate the scale, and
testing how the scale behaves among other samples, across longer periods of time, and in different
geographical locations. Making intentional efforts to longitudinally examine such educational
interventions across other campuses with different demographic make-ups and in different loca-
tions would help increase our understanding of the impact of these efforts within the larger
sociopolitical climate of American higher education.
A next step in this literature would be to figure out how to create more supports on campus so
that the effects of DREAMzone can persist over time, despite the pervasiveness of immigrant
hostile environments, particularly in regard to self-efficacy. A follow-up intervention is needed to
sustain participants’ self-efficacy development. Future research should investigate how additional
supports can contribute to participants’ self-efficacy for improving the campus environment for
undocumented students.
Also important for future investigations is the exploration of other effects from such educa-
tional interventions beyond cognitive outcomes. Actual behavior resulting from increases in
competency and self-efficacy is a logical next step in this body of inquiry. Though this study
investigated the competency and self-efficacy development of DREAMzone participants, exam-
ining actual ally behavior would yield light to how college campuses and undocumented students
tangibly benefit from such campus interventions.

Implications for Practice

Campus personnel can make a significant difference in the lives of undocumented students by
changing their administrative practices and policies. Many have the discretionary power to
challenge institutional policies and practices that fail to support the academic and social experi-
ences of undocumented students. Because they are uniquely positioned to intervene systemically,
campus personnel can circumvent the constraints of the broader sociopolitical environment by
working toward inclusive campus-based action. Campus-based action serves as an important site
of resistance to the relative silence from state policymakers or to normative responses of de facto
exclusion by omission (Barnhardt et al., 2017). Campus personnel need to look at how student
affairs policy and practice influence undocumented students perceptions of the campus climate and
devise creative programmatic and intervention efforts to address the unique set of challenges
undocumented students face.
Given the influence of policy at all levels of governance, campus personnel must be aware and
informed about how to best support undocumented students across a broad range of services (Suarez-
Orozco et al., 2015). Campus personnel who make a concerted effort to be more sensitive to immigration
policy issues, for example, can help counter the negative and discriminatory messages students receive
(Contreras, 2009; Pérez et al., 2010; Pérez & Rodríguez, 2011). Without understanding the nexus of
policy and law that helps shape undocumented students’ experiences, campus personnel cannot mean-
ingfully respond to undocumented students’ needs (Gildersleeve et al., 2010). Campus personnel should
advocate for comprehensive professional development training that is responsive to the intersection of
education and immigration policy.
Outreach programs, counseling centers, student organizations, campus resource centers, and
offices for undocumented students all offer unique opportunities to deliver effective educational

200 doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA JSARP 2017, 54(2)

 DREAMer-Ally

interventions (Canedo Sanchez & So, 2015; Pérez et al., 2010; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015).
Supporting the development of practitioners on campus regarding the intersection of education
and immigration reaffirms an institution’s commitment to serving undocumented students (Pérez
et al., 2011). Campuses must support the students that they admit and enroll. Educational
interventions such as DREAMzone can help foster a campus climate that supports the academic
success, as well as the personal and social growth, of undocumented students.
Publicly demonstrating support for undocumented students is similarly essential for creating a
climate of inclusion and affirming the value of diversity. Institutions cannot continue to take
neutral stances in regard to undocumented students. Waiting for immigration reform at the federal
level reduces institutional accountability for serving the needs of undocumented students at the
institutional level. Institutions should be bold and take a stance to support their students. The
reluctance of institutions of higher education to support undocumented students legitimizes laws
that deny undocumented students financial aid, contributes to anti-immigrant sentiment on
campus, and further supports the broader laws that criminalize associating with undocumented
immigrants (Chen & Rhoads, 2016). DREAMzone is presented here as an educational interven-
tion that can serve as a first step for higher education institutions to hold themselves accountable
to embedding long-term support for undocumented students as a matter of inclusive excellence.

References
Bandura, A. (1977a). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3),
75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. Urdan & F. Pajares (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–598. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
Barnhardt, C., Phillips, C., Young, R. L., & Sheets, J. K. (2017). The administration of diversity and equity on campuses and its
relationships to serving undocumented immigrant students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(1), 1–10.
doi:10.1037/a0040025
Canedo Sanchez, R. E., & So, M. L. (2015). UC Berkeley’s undocumented student program: Holistic strategies for undocu-
mented student equitable success across higher education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(3), 464–477. doi:10.17763/
0017-8055.85.3.464
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. doi:10.1207/
s15327906mbr0102_10
Chen, A. C., & Rhoads, R. A. (2016). Undocumented student allies and transformative resistance: An ethnographic case study.
The Review of Higher Education, 39(4), 515–542. doi:10.1353/rhe.2016.0033
Contreras, F. (2009). Sin papeles y rompiendo barreras: Latino students and the challenges of persisting in college. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 610–632. doi:10.17763/haer.79.4.02671846902gl33w
Diaz-Strong, D., Gomez, C., Luna-Duarte, M. E., & Meiners, E. R. (2011). Purged: Undocumented students, financial aid
policies, and access to higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(2), 107–119. doi:10.1177/
1538192711401917
Dougherty, K. J., Nienhusser, H. K., & Vega, B. E. (2010). Undocumented immigrants and state higher education policy: The
politics of in-state tuition eligibility in Texas and Arizona. Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 123–173. doi:10.1353/
rhe.2010.0012
Flores, S. M., & Chapa, J. (2009). Latino immigrant access to higher education in a bipolar context of reception. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 8(1), 90–109. doi:10.1177/1538192708326996
Gildersleeve, R. E., Rumann, C., & Mondragon, R. (2010). Serving undocumented students: Current law and policy. In J. Price
(Ed.), Understanding and Supporting Undocumented Students. New Directions for Student Services, no. 131 (pp. 5–18).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gildersleeve, R. E., & Vigil, D. (2015). Institutionalizing support for undocumented Latino/a students in American higher
education. In M. L. Freeman & M. Martinez (Eds.), College Completion for Latino/a Students: Institutional and System
Approaches. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 172 (pp. 39–49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

JSARP 2017, 54(2) © NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 201

DREAMer-Ally

Gonzáles, R. (2010). On the wrong side of the tracks: Understanding the effects of school structure and social capital in the
educational pursuits of undocumented immigrant students. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(4), 469–485. doi:10.1080/
0161956X.2010.518039
Gonzáles, R. G. (2009). Young lives on hold: The college dreams of undocumented students. New York, NY: College Board.
Gonzáles, R. G., Terriquez, V., & Ruszczyk, S. P. (2014). Becoming DACAmented: Assessing the short-term benefits of
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). American Behavioral Scientist, 58(14), 1852–1872. doi:10.1177/
0002764214550288
Hernandez, S., Hernandez, I., Gadson, R., Huftalin, D., Ortiz, A. M., White, M. C., & Yocum-Gaffney, D. (2010). Sharing their
secrets: Undocumented students’ personal stories of fear, drive, and survival. In J. Price (Ed.), Understanding and
Supporting Undocumented Students. New Directions for Student Services, no. 131 (pp. 67–84). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Herrera, F. A., Garibay, J. C., Garcia, G. A., & Johnston, M. P. (2013). Documenting attitudes toward undocumented immigrant
access to public education: A multilevel analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 36(4), 513–549. doi:10.1353/
rhe.2013.0043
Hooker, S., McHugh, M., & Mathay, A. (2015). Lessons from the local level: DACA’s implementation and impact on education
and training success. MPI National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.
org/research/lessons-local-level-dacas-implementation-and-impact-education-and-training-success
Jauregui, J. A., & Slate, J. R. (2010). Texas borderland community colleges and views regarding undocumented students: A
qualitative study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 11(2), 183–210. doi:10.2190/
CS.11.2.b
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20, 141–151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116
Lopez, T. (2011, September). Left back: The impact of SB 1070 on Arizona’s youth. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. Retrieved
from http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/bacon_program/pdf/Left_Back.pdf
Martinez, L. M. (2014). Dreams deferred: The impact of legal reforms on undocumented Latino youth. American Behavioral
Scientist, 58(14), 1873–1890. doi:10.1177/0002764214550289
Menjívar, C., & Abrego, L. J. (2012). Legal violence: Immigration law and the lives of Central American immigrants. American
Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1380–1421. doi:10.1086/663575
Muñoz, S. M. (2015). Identity, social activism, and the pursuit of higher education: The journey stories of undocumented and
unafraid community activists. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Muñoz, S. M., & Maldonado, M. M. (2012). Counterstories of college persistence by undocumented Mexicana students:
Navigating race, class, gender, and legal status. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(3), 293–
315. doi:10.1080/09518398.2010.529850
Passel, J. S. (2003). Further demographic information relating to the DREAM Act. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from www.nilc.
org/immlawpolicy/dream/dream_Demographics.pdf
Payne, E. C., & Smith, M. (2011). The reduction of stigma in schools: A new professional development model for empowering
educators to support LGBTQ students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(2), 174–200. doi:10.1080/19361653.2011.563183
Pérez, P. A., & Rodríguez, J. (2011). Access and opportunity for Latina/o undocumented college students: Familial and
institutional support factors. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 5(1), 14–21.
Pérez, W., & Cortes, R. D. (2011). Undocumented Latino college students: Their socioemotional and academic experience. El
Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly.
Pérez, W., Cortes, R. D., Ramos, K., & Coronado, H. (2010). “Cursed and blessed”: Examining the socioemotional and
academic experiences of undocumented Latina and Latino college students. In J. Price (Ed.), Understanding and
Supporting Undocumented Students. New Directions for Student Services, no. 131 (pp. 35–51). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Pérez, W., Espinoza, R., Ramos, K., Coronado, H. M., & Cortes, R. (2009). Academic resilience among undocumented Latino
students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31(2), 149–181. doi:10.1177/0739986309333020
Pérez, W., Muñoz, S., Alcantar, C. M., & Guarneros, N. (2011). Educators supporting DREAMERS: Becoming an undocumented
student ally. In J. Landsman, & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers/Diverse classrooms: A guide to building inclusive
schools, promoting high expectations, and eliminating racism (2nd ed., pp. 219–313). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Poynter, K. J., & Tubbs, N. J. (2007). Safe zones: Creating LGBT safe space ally programs. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(1), 121–
132.
Ratts, M. J., Kaloper, M., McReady, C., Tighe, L., Butler, S. K., Dempsey, K., & McCullough, J. (2013). Safe space programs in
K–12 schools: Creating a visible presence of LGBTQ allies. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 387–404.
doi:10.1080/15538605.2013.839344
Russel, A. (2011). State policies regarding undocumented college students: A narrative of unresolved issues, ongoing debate
and missed opportunities. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Stebleton, M. J., & Aleixo, M. B. (2015). Examining undocumented Latino/a student interactions with faculty and institutional
agents. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(3), 256–273. doi:10.1177/1538192715574097
Suárez-Orozco, C., Katsiaficas, D., Birchall, O., Alcantar, C. M., Hernandez, E., Garcia, Y.,. . . Teranishi, R. T. (2015).
Undocumented undergraduates on college campuses: Understanding their challenges and assets and what it takes to
make a undocufriendly campus. Harvard Educational Review, 85(3), 427–465. doi:10.17763/0017-8055.85.3.427
Suárez-Orozco, C., Yoshikawa, H., Teranishi, R. T., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2011). Growing up in the shadows: The develop-
mental implications of unauthorized status. Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 438–473. doi:10.17763/haer.81.3.
g23x203763783m75

202 doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA JSARP 2017, 54(2)

 DREAMer-Ally

Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pederson, P., Smith, E. J., & Vasquez-Nuttal, E. (1982). Position paper:
Cross-cultural counseling competencies. Counseling Psychologists, 10, 45–52. doi:10.1177/0011000082102008
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Teranishi, R. T., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2011). Immigrants in community college: Toward greater knowledge
and awareness. The Future of Children, 21(1), 153–169. doi:10.1353/foc.2011.0009
USCIS. (2016). Data set: Form I-821d Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/tools/
reports-studies/immigration-forms-data/data-set-form-i-821d-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals
Watson, V., Howard-Wagner, D., & Spanierman, L. (Eds.). (2016). Unveiling whiteness in the twenty-first century: Global
manifestations, transdisciplinary interventions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies.
In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 28–45). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Woodford, M. R., Kolb, C. L., Durocher-Radeka, G., & Javier, G. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ally training
programs on campus: Current variations and future directions. Journal of College Student Development, 55(3), 317–322.
doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0022
Worthen, M. G. F. (2011). College student experiences with an LGBTQ ally training program: A mixed methods study at a
university in the southern United States. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(4), 332–377. doi:10.1080/19361653.2011.608024
Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2016, April 14). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States.
Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immi
grants-and-immigration-united-states#Unauthorized%20Immigrants

Appendix A

Factors, Items, and Factor Loadings

Factor
Factor Name Item Loading
DREAMer-ally I feel that I am aware of my preconceptions of undocumented students.a 0.571
competency
I am informed about the federal and state policies affecting the undocumented 0.735
student experience.a
I am aware of the challenges encountered by undocumented students in higher 0.756
education.a
I feel comfortable providing support for undocumented students within the scope 0.625
of my position.a
I am aware of resources available specifically for undocumented students.a 0.753
I feel prepared to serve as an ally for undocumented students in higher education.a 0.676
DREAMer-ally self- How much can you do to make your institution a safe place for undocumented 0.762
efficacy students?b
How much can you do to get undocumented students to trust other students, staff, 0.805
faculty, and administrators?b
How much can you help other students, staff, faculty, and administrators better 0.850
serve undocumented students?b
How much can you do to enhance collaboration between students, staff, faculty, 0.873
and administrators to make your institution more inclusive of undocumented
students?b

Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree

a

Scale: 1 = Nothing, 2 = Very Little, 3 = Some, 4 = A Lot

b

JSARP 2017, 54(2) © NASPA http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1289098 203

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.