by Peter Dominowski
Executive Director, University Station Alliance

In any organization, reporting relationships—and where a supervisor sits within the institutional hierarchy—can significantly influence success. The
University Station Alliance (U:SA) surveyed radio-only and joint TV and radio stations licensed to universities to better understand their reporting structures and how those structures affect operations.

Stations were asked to respond to three questions:
a) To whom do you currently report at your university?
b) How many layers of management separate your supervisor from the university president?
c) In an ideal structure, to whom should the station report?

A total of 42 stations responded, representing approximately 27% of all radio-only and joint TV and radio university-licensed stations. As promised, all data and comments remain anonymous.

Question 1: To whom do you currently report at your university?

As expected, stations reported to individuals with a wide range of titles—from university president to chief financial officer, senior vice president for administration, senior associate vice president for outreach, dean of the college of arts and letters, and others. Overall, 45% of stations indicated satisfaction with their current reporting structure. Conversely, more than half reported that they were not fully satisfied.

Question 2: How many layers of management separate your supervisor from the university president?

Survey responses showed:

  • 1% of stations report directly to the university president
  • 55% have one layer of management between them and the president
  • 42% have two layers of management
  • 2% have three or more layers

Question 3: In an ideal structure, to whom should the station report?

Not surprisingly, respondents expressed a wide range of views on the ideal reporting structure, along with the advantages and disadvantages of
different placements within the university.

Several respondents favored reporting directly to the university president:

  • “Ideally, a university licensee station should report to either the chancellor or the president.”
  • “I think all public radio GMs should report directly to the university president. Reporting to the VP of advancement sends the wrong message to listeners and donors—suggesting the station is a revenue generator for the institution. Even if that’s not the case, it creates a negative perception. Reporting to the provost or other senior leaders can also be challenging, since our work often falls outside their expertise and the station may not receive the support it deserves (and I’m not referring to financial support).”

Others preferred having at least one level of separation:

  • “Reporting to a president can be a double-edged sword. With the right president, it can be highly effective. But if the president does not value the station, it can become a disadvantage, requiring constant justification of the station’s importance.”
  • “The ideal is to report to either the dean or the provost—close to the president, but not too close.”
  • “While I sometimes wish for more direct access to the president, having a buffer has been advantageous.”
  • “A direct line to the president can be helpful if they are supportive, but it can also expose the station to shifting priorities or personal influence. Our current structure provides insulation, allowing us to maintain independence as a credible news source and NPR member station.”
  • “I like reporting to a dean. It provides access to senior leadership when needed, without direct pressure from the highest levels of the university.”
  • “I’m comfortable reporting to the CFO. I’ve reported to the president before, and they simply didn’t have time.”

While not widely reported as a current issue, some respondents noted concern about potential editorial or programming pressure:

  • “It makes sense for the station to be aligned with fundraising rather than marketing, where there is a greater risk of being expected to promote the institution through programming decisions.”
  • “Being housed within Academic Affairs helps insulate us from editorial pressure from the university’s marketing and communications office, with whom we’ve had journalistic conflicts in the past.”

Some emphasized that the ideal structure depends heavily on institutional context:

  • “There is no single ideal model. It depends on the university, whether it is public or private, the role the station plays, and how it is evaluated financially.”

Others highlighted the importance of leadership support:

  • “What matters most is having a supervisor who understands the value of public broadcasting and will advocate for it—someone who recognizes the responsibility to serve the public, not just the institution, and who respects the independence required for public radio.”

Finally, several respondents pointed to the benefits of being aligned with academic units:

  • “There may not be a single ideal structure, but being part of an academic college is helpful. Academic leaders tend to understand that journalistic freedom parallels academic freedom.”
  • “Our structure places the station within an academic unit that values a free press. Reporting through marketing departments is often problematic, as it can lead to pressure to prioritize institutional promotion.”

As with many aspects of university-licensed stations, no single reporting structure emerges as the clear preference. However, this survey highlights the diversity of existing models, the varying degrees of proximity to university leadership, and the trade-offs associated with each approach.