November, 2007, North Clackamas School District passed the largest school bond in Oregon history with a 55 percent yes vote and 69 percent voter turnout. This election was won in every high-school attendance area and in all but 10 of 60 precincts, most of which were on the edges of the district, away from the main campaign push.

The success of the $229.6 million bond relied heavily on a 30-month ramp-up to the election and $105,000 in campaign funds to support the bond measure's passage. The district hired an architectural firm (Mahlum Architects) to do a school-by-school analysis of facilities and make a series of seven visual and factual presentations to a diverse 40-member citizens' advisory committee. Next, the superintendent crafted two versions of the bond plan based on the facilities advisory committee's recommendations - one lower-cost and one higher-cost. These were presented to the community in a series of 11 public forums, where participants were surveyed.

Some other new tricks that worked:

• Postcards (23,000 of them) personalized by volunteers
• Professionally designed, hard-hitting mailers
• So-called "viral" e-mail - a message spread from friend to friend by e-mail
• Prioritizing the effort to obtain $5,000 and $10,000 contributions over smaller donations
• Greater use of a consultant, particularly for messages, fund-raising strategy, and timing

North Clackamas has 17,250 students in 28 schools. It's a rapidly growing suburban district with 30 percent of students on free and reduced lunches in an area with 58,000 registered voters. This bond faced several challenges:

• A local option had failed in May 2004, with only 44 percent voter support
• The district, which comprises several cities and unincorporated areas, lacks a strong community identity
• Aside from the weekly paper, the district lacks its own news media
• A 2004 survey showed growing distrust from district parents
• Thirty-seven percent of voters live in the rapid-growth part of the community, where schools are newer but so overcrowded that 60 portable classrooms are in use
• Sixty-three percent of voters live in the established area, where school populations are stable or shrinking and where eight school buildings were built before World War II

District intensifies communications

Relationship building with key communicators and community groups was critical and began immediately after the local-option failure. The district hosted The Parent Institute, a free day-long parenting conference and offered a series of free evening lectures for parents. Other efforts included a Newsflash list-serve (now serving 1,850 subscribers) to keep key communicators informed about district actions and posting all information about implementation of the 1998 bond measure and plans for the 2006 bond proposal on the district Web site. A quick-link button on the home page took people directly to this information.

Informational pieces focused on process transparency and addressed messages gleaned from a survey. These pieces were used not only as news releases and direct mail but also handed out at public meetings, posted on Web sites, and published in district and school newsletters (e.g., sewer repairs; more portable classrooms). The most-used pieces were a district map with icons indicating improvements at each school and a tri-fold brochure that clearly explained the basics of the bond package. Some pieces targeted specific audiences such as a school-by-school listing of the 60 portable classrooms for east-side residents and a one-pager about safety and maintenance issues for west-side residents.

Six times during the two years before the bond election, each school principal sent informational letters to 100 active voters over age 50 who live in that school's neighborhood, inviting them to visit their schools.

Eleven meetings were held in the fall of 2005 to gather feedback that would guide development of the final proposal, including meetings for business and political leaders, religious leaders, each of the three high school attendance areas, district employees, Ardenwald residents anxious about the plan to re-build their historic school, Wichita Elementary residents concerned that their school would be closed, Bilquist Elementary residents asked to weigh in on whether their school should be re-built or remodeled, seniors, and the community at large.

Paper surveys were distributed to those who attended the meetings, and electronic surveys were distributed using the list-serve. Resulting data from were used by the superintendent and board to create the final version of the bond proposal and by the district communications team.

Surveys showed community support for health and safety improvements, renovations, land purchases, technology, and new schools. There was less support for other options. The bond proposal was adjusted accordingly.

District leaders and parent volunteers conducted more than 90 community presentations between March and October 2006. These included brief back-to-school-night overview presentations and in-depth bond-night presentations in each school as well as other presentations.

Using consultants to best advantage

The campaign used a paid consultant to a greater degree than in past campaigns and, while this was a significant cost, it paid off. The consultant, Liz Kaufman, was instrumental in developing campaign strategy and messages. She crafted survey questions, analyzed results, trained building captains, wrote phone bank and canvassing scripts, helped write and edit a dozen voters' guide endorsements, and had her team design and write six hard-hitting campaign mailers with careful attention to message. She managed printing and mailing schedules to coincide with historically high-turnout days during the vote-by-mail period. Mailings targeted voters who had registered since 2004 and all voters who voted in two or more of the past four elections. They were addressed to women, when possible.

Another consultant, Jeanne Magmer, was hired by the district to write the survey-based statement for the voter's guide. A district resident, she also volunteered to serve on the campaign steering committee, where she helped fine-tune ideas and language laid out by Kaufman. She improved the quality of surveys, voters' pamphlet material and mailings.

Enlisting volunteer help

The citizen campaign had two co-chairs, a steering committee, and, in each school, a building captain or co-captains. Each building captain tried to recruit 20 parent volunteers for her or his team.

The campaign co-chairs brought significant experience to their roles: Ginny Markell, a retired district teacher, was a past president of the national PTA. Julie Houston, a district parent, serves as a county leader with Stand for Children. Markell is an east-side resident and Houston a west-side resident. Markell is retired and was able to focus full-time on the campaign.

The co-chairs shouldered much of the workload of the campaign. The steering committee served more as an advisory group, although some members helped with community presentations, voters' guide endorsements or fundraising.

Recruiting volunteers was difficult, perhaps because there are fewer parents at home full time. Fewer were willing to volunteer for potentially confrontational one-on-one canvassing and phone banks. As a result, the campaign resorted to automation to make 11,000 phone calls.

Volunteers were eager to help personalize and stamp postcards, paint signs for TV-news shots, wave "Get Out the Vote" signs and make last-minute phone calls from their homes.

The major campaign pushes were a two-month fund-raising effort in November of 2005, two months of survey phone calls April-May 2006, and the comprehensive effort from September 2006 through Election Day. The fall push was launched with a building captains' meeting at the superintendent's house on the first day of school.

A campaign newsletter was distributed monthly by e-mail to all captains who passed it on to their teams. A volunteer developed a Web site that posted all mailings, car signs, favorable news clips, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and handouts.

Stand for Children was a significant campaign partner, with organizer Nathan Kadish serving on the steering committee.