The purposes of this study were to 1) compare the characteristics between the elections that were successful and unsuccessful; 2) identify the purpose of the school bond issue (demographic characteristics); 3) identify the financial resources and structure of the school districts (economic characteristics); 4) analyze the public relations and publicity techniques used in the school bond campaign (communications variables); 5) determine the degree of responsibility assumed by individuals and groups for the educational, building, and bond needs of the school districts (group involvement); 6) ascertain personal and professional information about the district superintendent as it related to voter influence in the bond campaign; 7) determine prior bond election experience. The major conclusions were that the trend of large or small eligible voter turnout was inconclusive, urban districts had more difficulty than rural or suburban districts in passing bond issues, and bond issues were passed mainly for new facilities. School districts with large assessed valuation per resident student had better results than others. The newspaper, "general talking it up," speakers, public meetings, and telephone committees were effective means of communication. The superintendent, board of education, faculty, principals, P.T.A., and lay groups assumed the most responsibility in the elections.