Community News Fellowships: Implementation Overview

While the model legislation sets the foundation, a successful fellowship program depends on hundreds of practical decisions and relationships developed on the ground. Relative to other public policies that support local journalism, fellowship programs are likely to require more time, patient effort, and collaborative leadership to implement effectively. Programs must be able to recruit fellows and host news organizations, match them effectively, manage complex relationships and employment situations, and provide ongoing support for journalists and news organizations that may be operating on thin financial margins.

The model is designed to provide a foundation based on what works at similar programs around the country, while being customizable to local needs. States differ in their higher education systems, philanthropic landscapes, and the scale and shape of their local news ecosystems, and a viable fellowship program needs to account for those realities.

We cover key design choices and tradeoffs involved where the model offers alternative approaches. Where possible, we draw on lessons from the state fellowship programs now operating in Washington, California, and New Mexico, as well as the national nonprofit Report for America, to ground new efforts in real-world experience.

Start with purpose

Every public policy should start with the question: What is the problem being solved? For community news fellowships – and all other policies Rebuild Local News supports – the first and primary goal is to preserve and expand the provision of high-quality news and information that strengthens local communities.

A well-designed community news fellowships program can boost community news and information over the short and long term by satisfying several objectives at the same time: immediately increasing the amount of local journalism that would not otherwise exist; building a workforce pipeline for early-career journalists; strengthening community news providers; and creating permanent job growth .

These goals overlap, but they are sometimes in tension depending on the local needs or priorities of a state considering the policy. If it becomes necessary to navigate tradeoffs between goals, we recommend establishing a priority purpose from the start.

For example – beyond just expanding community news coverage – a program whose primary emphasis is workforce development points toward in-state recruitment of recent graduates and strong training components, which is New Mexico’s approach. Alternatively, a program primarily aimed at boosting news provider sustainability points toward matching requirements, capacity-building support, and employment structures that give news organizations a durable stake in the fellow, as Report for America does.

Our model bill suggests how to accomplish multiple goals simultaneously. But if a narrower approach is preferred, laying out a priority order in the bill’s findings or administrative guidance can help steer those decisions.

Choosing an institutional home

Every community news fellowships program needs a competent administrator, whether it’s the journalism school at a public university or a 501(c)(3) journalism support organization. The role requires three distinct skill sets: the ability to launch a new program; selecting fellows, which resembles a competitive admissions process; and selecting news organizations, which more closely resembles a foundation’s grantmaking process.

The three existing state fellowships were created through a budget line item that named a university host up front, leaving all program design and eligibility decisions to the program administrators. Our model community news fellowships framework suggests an alternative approach in situations in which lawmakers have not pre-selected a program administrator. Rather than designating a host institution in statute, it defines the program’s goals and requirements in legislation and tasks a designated state agency with selecting the administrator through a competitive request for proposals, open to public colleges and universities in the state and to 501(c)(3) nonprofits (which may include private universities) with demonstrated experience in journalism education, journalism support, or workforce development. California used a similar mechanism when the state’s executive branch selected a respected third-party philanthropic foundation via competitive bidding to administer the state’s Civic Media Program.

The competitive bidding approach to select a program administrator has several advantages. It relieves the legislature of deciding who is best positioned to run the program — which avoids advantaging one university over others in states with multiple journalism schools that desire a hosting role. And it sets terms for evaluating potential administrators based on demonstrated relationships across the state’s news ecosystem; organizational capacity to recruit, match, and support fellows and host news providers through the fellowship term; and credible pre-launch, staffing, and evaluation plans. The designated state agency then oversees the administrator’s compliance with the expectations set out in statute, keeping the program at arm’s length from the government while preserving public accountability.

Practitioners should still understand the field of likely respondents. Every current state program is housed at a large public university with an established journalism program. Universities provide political legitimacy, payroll and HR infrastructure, institutional experience with the fellowships model, familiarity with journalism’s ethical practices, and a natural connection to the pipeline of emerging journalists.

Hosting the program at a university also has some potential downsides. University procurement and vendor-registration systems are often not easy for small news organizations to navigate. Especially when fellows are employed by the university rather than the host news organizations (another policy consideration we address below), the mandatory training, leave policies, and timekeeping of being a university employee may not mesh well with how news outlets work.

Independent nonprofits are typically nimbler than universities, but they may lack local political legitimacy or the same administrative capacity to handle complex payroll and HR functions. In many states, an appropriate in-state journalism-focused nonprofit may not yet exist. However, a growing ecosystem of national journalism support organizations opens the possibility of program management by an established national nonprofit with existing recruitment, matching, and payment infrastructure, whether as the selected administrator or as a contractor. National organizations can also support locally operated programs. The merging of the Washington State University News Fellow Program with Report for America shows one example of how this can work in practice.

Program duration and funding stability

Two-year fellowships consistently outperform one-year terms on skill development, retention, and journalistic and community impact, according to our research. There is often a learning curve for both newly hired journalists (especially if they’re early-career) and host news providers that is not surmounted until the second year of a placement. Accordingly, our model recommends two years as a minimum. Some existing programs now include an optional third year. Shorter internship-style tracks can complement a fellowship and support workforce skill development, but they are unlikely to meaningfully close coverage gaps and are less likely to result in net job creation.

A challenge of multi-year terms is they can create a mismatch with annual legislative budget mechanisms, especially with overlapping cohorts. Program managers need to be able to hold appropriated funds longer than one fiscal year in order to fund a fellow’s second year. Programs funded through budget provisos and annual earmarks have operated for years without ever being codified in statute, but at the cost of substantial annual advocacy work to re-secure funding and uncertainty about long-term duration, which could discourage some private funders from supplying matching funds. We therefore recommend establishing the program in statute with a fund that operates across fiscal years.

Another advantage of a continuing fund is the ability to supplement public funding with philanthropic support. For example, a foundation might fund fellows covering a specific geography or topic like health, housing, or education. Examples include the California Local News Fellowship’s partnership with the California Health Care Foundation to boost health coverage, and the Washington State University Murrow Fellowship’s support from Microsoft to fund positions in counties with data centers.

The model law allows the administrator to receive and blend private funds and to carry these funds over so unexpended balances remain available to the program rather than reverting to the general fund.

We recommend that lawmakers pre-fund the account for several years or establish an ongoing revenue set-aside to meet the unique needs of the program. This can be paired with a private match requirement where other funders can be engaged.

Employment and compensation

Who employs the fellow

A fellow’s journalistic work is directed by the news provider where they’ve been placed. But the most consequential policy choice after the program administrator is whether fellows are employed by the program (typically the university) or by the host news organization. Both methods currently exist, and neither is universally superior. There are tradeoffs.

Employment by the program administrator (such as the California Local News Fellowship, where the fellows are UC Berkeley employees) provides consistent pay and benefits, centralized HR, and an equity floor across placements. The tradeoffs are cost, since university pay and benefits rates can be higher (or lower) than provided by host news organizations for employees in similar roles, and friction where institutional employment rules collide with news organization practice: mandatory closures and use-it-or-lose-it leave, overtime restrictions, and compliance training requirements may create friction with news organization culture and policies. This can also lead to serious challenges with job creation at the end of a fellowship: A host news organization may not be able to match the fellow’s existing compensation when a program ends, and a fellow may be less likely to accept a pay cut to continue with the host news organization.

For Report for America, on the other hand, reporters are employed by the local news organizations, which pay the reporter the same as other journalists with comparable levels of experience (with a minimum set at the county’s living wage). That approach integrates the fellow fully into the host’s culture and workflows, compensation structure, avoids university overhead, and gives the host organization a direct stake in the fellow’s success, increasing the likelihood they will be hired when the fellowship term ends. Tradeoffs are that payroll and benefits administration might be more onerous for small outlets, the quality of a fellow’s benefits depends on the host’s resources, and reporters in one region may end up with different pay than in another region. The model law does not decide which way to go in advance, but the choice depends heavily on the policies and preferences of the chosen administrator.

Setting fellow salaries

The question of fellow pay is closely connected to the selection of the program administrator and whether the journalist is an employee of a university or the state government, or if they are employed by the local news organization. A fellow could also be employed by a third-party administrator such as a 501(c)(3) organization, though this has not been attempted yet.

If the journalist is on the payroll of the journalism school or the state, the default is to set a single wage for all the journalists. This is how it’s done at the fellowships programs in California, New Mexico and Washington, subsidized by the state government. This is easier for the administrator, and in some cases may be required (for instance, if there’s a union contract governing university employees). Though some cost of living adjustments can be made for high-cost regions, this approach mostly emphasizes a consistent wage. This has advantages and disadvantages. It means that each person in the program is paid the same amount (give or take adjustments for high-cost areas). Administratively, it is simpler.

On the other hand, there is risk too: that journalist will enter the newsroom quite possibly earning either more, or less, than other journalists with comparable skills or experience. That can create resentment either because someone new is getting paid more than a journalist who has been working there for several years for less. It can also make it less likely the fellow is permanently retained after the program if the only option to stay is to take a pay cut. In existing programs, some news outlets have declined to participate rather than let a program journalist’s salary skew their internal pay scale. Alternatively, if the program journalist comes in with a lower wage than the host news organization pays, it may create resentment and reflect a cost-of-living problem in higher-cost regions.

If the journalist is employed by local news organizations – as is the case with Report for America – there are a different set of pros and cons. It is much easier for the journalist to be compensated comparably to other journalists in that newsroom. That helps encourage better integration in the news organization and may make it more likely that the journalist is hired at the end of their two years (since they’re already on payroll). On the other hand, it means that journalists in the statewide program may be earning significantly different wages depending on what news organization they’re with. That may seem unfair. It is also administratively more difficult because the program has to distribute subsidy checks of different amounts depending on the news organization. This is more likely to be feasible if the state chooses an independent non-profit as the program administrator rather than running it through a state university system.

News organization local fundraising and cost-sharing

Programs diverge on whether and how much host news outlets and local donors contribute to the cost of paying a fellow. A matching requirement stretches program dollars (allowing for a larger program with more fellows), signals greater commitment by the news organization, and most importantly, encourages news organizations to generate new revenue by raising money from the community to support the position in the long run. For instance, Report for America works with local news organizations to raise money from local community foundations and individual donors. In all, the 429 news organizations have raised an additional $60 million in local giving.

The tradeoff is that matching requirements can disadvantage or exclude altogether the outlets without capacity to fundraise. One program that switched to requiring cost-sharing from host news organizations saw a drop in the number of host news organizations that applied to participate. This is why fundraising and cost-sharing need to be done in tandem: A news organization that can’t bear part of a fellow’s salary now is less likely to retain a fellow at full cost after the term ends, which may conflict with a program’s objective to support the fellow’s career and stimulate overall job growth.

Match levels are unspecified in the model law and may be best left to the politics of each state. Ideally the match will phase in from a lower first-year share to a higher second-year share and can be adjusted or waived for those unable to raise the funds. A host news organization’s increased cost-sharing is far more likely to fail unless it is coupled with efforts by the state, the journalism program or private players to help local news organizations develop local fundraising capacity. Doing so has some additional cost but increases the odds that the positions become permanent.

For example, in the Report for America program, the news outlets themselves pay 50% of a corps member’s compensation in year one, 66% in year two, and 80% in year three. RFA also gives substantial advance notice of a fellow’s placement and provides training and technical assistance to help news outlets with local fundraising. Washington state is moving to this model as they merge with RFA in the next fellowship class.

California does not have a cost escalator but requires news organizations to pay a flat contribution of $5,000, $15,000 or $25,000 toward the fellow’s university salary, based on the host organization’s staff size.

If a match is included, we strongly recommend pairing it with fundraising and revenue-building support for host news outlets, such as coaching, donor infrastructure, and fiscal sponsorship where needed. This might be provided by the fellowships program itself or by a contractor with expertise in those areas.

The flat-contribution approach may make more sense in situations where the fellow’s compensation has been set above the host organization’s usual rates and where job creation post-fellowship is less likely. This combination may be most appropriate in fellowships programs whose primary objectives are to temporarily offset certain coverage gaps that the market may never fill on its own. However, this approach may be less efficient than others at driving net job creation and supporting in-state careers for the fellows receiving experience and training under the program.

News organization eligibility and readiness

Fellowships can be successful in a large variety of news outlets. Programs have made successful placements across nonprofit and for-profit outlets, whether they are primarily print, digital, or broadcast. The most important vetting question is if they are a good place for an early-career journalist, especially whether the organization has robust editing and mentorship.

Programs consistently find that successful placements require demonstrated supervision and mentorship capacity by the host news organization. Report for America stopped placing fellows in news companies owned by hedge funds due to consistently low satisfaction ratings from corps members. Very small news outlets with a single reporter or editor can leave fellows feeling professionally isolated. The public-policy challenge for a fellowships program is that these sorts of organizations may be the only news provider in certain communities, which could put community equity and fellows’ wellbeing in conflict.

Unfortunately, turmoil in the local news industry means that hosting capacity must be continuously reverified. A news outlet’s supervisory staff can evaporate quickly. For these reasons, the administrator must be prepared to set clear standards and maintain regular communication with participating news outlets to ensure they are upheld. Early-career fellows sometimes face workplace challenges that would overwhelm even veteran journalists. Program administrators may need to have backup placement options available if – and when – insurmountable problems emerge at a host news organization.

Recruiting and matching fellows

Recruitment scope

Existing state fellowships differ on whether to limit eligibility to journalists from in-state or to cast a wider net to seek quality candidates. As with other elements of this policy, it depends on the program’s public policy objectives.

States that struggle with “brain drain” from departing college graduates may consider limiting placements to local candidates that the state’s education system already spent resources educating, as New Mexico’s program does. This can support home-grown students and develop the local talent base over the long run by building local career pathways. This could also strengthen the political case for the program.

However, the most important factor in the success of such a program is whether they field excellent journalists who do high-quality journalism in the community. If limiting the workforce to in-state students harms that goal, that weighs toward opening the program more broadly. An intermediate approach admits out-of-state candidates with demonstrated in-state ties. Another consideration is whether to limit the program to recent journalism graduates or consider mid-career applicants who may be switching from other fields.

Getting fellowship cohorts to reflect the demographic representation of their states requires dedicated effort. Existing fellowships have made great efforts to solicit the most competitive candidates available, making proactive outreach to minority-serving college programs and underrepresented communities where information gaps can lead qualified candidates not to apply. Report for America also broadened its pool by also recruiting for instance from Christian colleges, rural schools, and among military veterans.

Programs consistently identified rural placement as a challenge. Demand for rural placements from news organizations consistently outstrips the supply of willing candidates. The most effective approach has been recruiting candidates already connected to rural communities, including application questions asking where candidates can realistically live. Programs can also set above-market fellow wages to increase fellows’ demand for rural placements, though this could come at the cost of permanent job creation if the wages can’t be sustained in the longer run.

The matching process

Matching fellows to news outlets is the highest-stakes decision a fellowships program makes. A failed match can be costly for the fellow, the news outlet, and the program. Operating programs have converged on a few practices worth adopting:

• • Dual-matching, where both fellows and news organizations express ranked preferences, or where the program presents each news organization a slate of several vetted fellows to interview and select from, is more robust than unilateral assignment. Programs report that fellows placed at their second or third choice often thrive.
  • Disclosing the specific outlet and beat up front, rather than asking fellow candidates to apply to the program in the abstract, improves applicant uptake. In one program’s first round, applicants were told they might be placed anywhere. When unfilled spots were re-opened with the outlet and beat named, applications grew dramatically.
  • Formalizing expectations in a statement of work at the start of each placement so that role expectations are made clear to both the fellow and the host news organization. This helps prevent misunderstandings emerging during a fellowship term.

Throughout the process, program staff should keep aware and communicate with participating fellows and news organizations.

Administration

Fund the launch phase

Launching a new fellowships program is resource-intensive. Taking the time for pre-launch relationship-building with news organizations, including extensive in-person visits to prospective host news organizations, creates smoother operations for years afterward, according to our research. The model recommends a funded pre-launch phase of at least four months, including outreach and relationship-building with news organizations, creation of operational documentation, and vendor and contract setup. Lawmakers should not expect fellows in the field immediately after the program is authorized.

Payment flows and agreements

In programs where fellows are directly employed by host news organizations that receive their cost-sharing payments from the fellowships program in cash, existing programs recommend staged tranches rather than lump sums to manage the risk of mid-term fellow departures. Some host news organizations will need help navigating payment systems. Programs recommend standardizing agreements with a single contract template for news organizations and another for fellows, a memorandum of understanding setting expectations for both parties, and a statement of work for each placement.

Staff the program realistically

Every existing program runs with minimal dedicated staff relative to the complexity of the work, and every program leader describes the administrative demands as exceeding initial expectations. Fellow recruitment and matching consistently consume the most staff time. Sustaining the fellow-news organization relationship through the term also requires proactive communication through defined channels, including regular check-ins with both fellows and news organization supervisors and cohort gatherings. As a benchmark, Report for America staffs at roughly one relationship manager per forty fellows.

Transparency, evaluation, and editorial independence

The model requires an annual public report by the administrator that includes:

• • the number of fellows supported, their host news organizations, and communities served;
  • total spending broken down by fellow compensation, program supports, program evaluation, and admin costs; and
  • private contributions received by source and purpose.

This allows policymakers and the public to evaluate whether the program is effectively and efficiently reaching the communities it was designed to serve.

The model prohibits any state agency or official from exercising editorial control over a fellow or host news outlet. Administering the program at arm’s length from government through a university or independent nonprofit reinforces these protections in practice. Independence protections support the program’s credibility and news outlets’ willingness to participate.