Posted on June 2, 2026
Guest blog by
Michael Cupeles,
Men’s Initiative Coordinator with Gateway Community Action Partnership
Michael is a fatherhood practitioner and a community engagement leader, specializing in father engagement, family strengthening, prevention strategies, and systems collaboration across New Jersey. Michael serves as Co-Chair of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Office of Family Voice Fatherhood Engagement Committee and is a liaison to the New Jersey Head Start Association.
He is a National Expert Board member for the Quality Improvement Center on Helplines and Hotlines, a National Lived Experience Consultant with the Children's Trust Fund Alliance, and a member of the Birth Parent National Network under the Children's Trust Fund Alliance. He also serves on the Parent Advisory Council for the FRIENDS National Center for CBCAP.
Michael’s work focuses on strengthening fathers, promoting healthy families, advancing community partnerships, and creating innovative approaches to male engagement through education, dialogue, mentorship, and prevention-centered programming. He has presented at state and national conferences on fatherhood, family engagement, prevention, and systems collaboration, and continues to advocate for fathers and families through leadership, training, and public engagement initiatives.
Through a Service Provider’s Eyes: What Fathers Truly Need
While fathers’ voices are essential to understanding the challenges they face, service providers working closely with fathers across the state can also provide valuable insight. Providers often serve as the bridge between fathers and systems that are difficult to navigate, offering a broader view of how policies, practices, and program design shape fathers’ ability to access support. In the following interview with Michael Cupeles, father of four and Male Initiative Coordinator for Gateway Community Action Program, Michael shares his thoughts on how our systems have failed fathers and what we can do about it.
- Fathers are not disengaged—Systems are!
Dads, particularly fathers of color, get a bad rap. We all have heard the phrases deadbeat dad or absentee father and have witnessed the media portraying dads as irresponsible, disengaged, and unwilling to parent or incapable of handling the task. These stereotypes are not only inaccurate but also dangerous and harmful to families. What may look like a lack of interest is actually a symptom of system failure. Fathers want to be involved, but systems are not designed to support them. Instead, fathers are navigating systems that were not designed with fathers in mind and that lack the capacity and resources to engage them effectively. Many fathers do not learn about parenting or fatherhood supports until they are already involved with courts, child welfare, or other enforcement‑based systems. By that point, they often feel discouraged, judged, or mistrustful of services. Voluntary, prevention‑focused supports—especially those centered on connection, skill‑building, and co‑parenting—are limited, difficult to locate, or unavailable in many communities due to insufficient and inconsistent funding.
- Systems Lean Toward Mothers by Default
Across family‑serving systems, I have observed a persistent default toward mothers as the primary or only caregiver. Intake processes, eligibility rules, and referral pathways often assume fathers are secondary or absent. As a result, fathers are frequently:
- Not informed about available services
- Told they are not eligible for supports offered to mothers
- Treated as an afterthought, even when actively parenting or serving as the primary caregiver
In my role, I spend a significant amount of time navigating systems on behalf of fathers rather than delivering direct support. Limited coordination and minimal funding for father‑specific outreach create delays, missed opportunities for early engagement, and frustration for both fathers and providers.
- Resources Are Limited, Fragmented, and Hard to Find
What dads are saying is true! – there truly is nothing or very little out there for fathers. This reflects both limited service capacity and poor communication. Fatherhood programs are often short‑term, grant‑funded, and unable to meet community demand. Information about services is scattered, inconsistently shared, and difficult for both fathers and providers to track.
As a result, fathers often rely on family members, peers, or informal networks for guidance—mirroring what many fathers described in their own accounts.
- Program Design and Capacity Shape Engagement
From my observations, fathers engage more consistently when programs feel respectful, relatable, and grounded in lived experience. Engagement is strongest when services are:
- Relationship‑based rather than compliance‑driven
- Led or co‑facilitated by men who are fathers themselves
- Flexible in scheduling and delivery
- Connected to co‑parenting, employment, and economic stability
However, delivering these services reliably requires sustained funding. Programs operating with limited or unstable resources struggle to retain staff, build trust over time, or expand services to reach fathers earlier.
- Economic Stability and Father Engagement Are Interconnected
Employment instability, unpredictable work schedules, and financial stress frequently interfere with fathers’ ability to participate in services. Fatherhood support is more effective when coordinated with workforce and economic stability programs, yet funding streams for these services are often siloed and insufficient.
Recommendations
Supporting fathers requires more than individual programs. It requires coordinated systems and sustained investment to ensure services are accessible, consistent, and responsive to fathers’ needs. Without a statewide structure and the funding necessary to support it, these challenges will continue to persist across communities. Recommendations include:
- A coordinated, statewide approach to father engagement across child welfare, human services, workforce development, and community‑based organizations.
- Clear inclusion of fathers in eligibility criteria, intake processes, and outreach efforts across family‑serving systems.
- Improved communication so fathers know what services exist and how to access them.
- Increased and sustained funding for voluntary, community‑based fatherhood programs focused on support rather than compliance.
- Meaningful involvement of fathers with lived experience in program design, outreach, and facilitation.
- Stronger alignment between fatherhood services and employment and economic stability supports.
- Improved data collection to identify where fathers are being excluded and where additional capacity and investment are needed.
