Science communication training programs aim to provide scientists with the skills and confidence to interface with the public about their research. But past research suggests science communication training programs lack strategy, focusing instead on narrow skill-building. Science communication fellowships may differ from other training programs in that they are longer, more intensive, and experiential. For these reasons, they have the potential to be more effective than traditional science communication workshops. This study employs interviews with fellowship directors to explore these programs' curricula, evaluation, and infrastructure. Findings suggest that these programs differ in key ways from other science communication training programs due to their intensive, experiential nature and the ways in which they connect fellows with real-life opportunities to practice communication skills. However, these programs suffer from a lack of evaluation and interaction between programs. We conclude with a few ways these programs might increase their impact through (1) prioritizing strategic communication, (2) interacting with other programs, and (3) evaluating their efforts.