Californians have consistently invested in new government programs. Over the past quarter century, voters have approved tens of billions of dollars in state bonds to build schools, improve water systems, address climate risks, expand housing opportunities and strengthen public infrastructure. Those investments shape daily life across our state.

Yet years after the votes are counted and projects are underway, it can be surprisingly difficult to answer a simple question: Did we get the results we were promised?

California has long tracked how bond dollars are spent, to guard against waste and fraud. We have yet to consistently measure whether those investments achieved the outcomes voters expected.

That distinction matters. Since 2000, the state has issued $196 billion in general obligation bonds and now has $81.8 billion bonds outstanding. This fiscal year alone the state will spend nearly $8.6 billion servicing bond debt.

These investments support priorities Californians overwhelmingly value, allowing the state to finance projects that benefit generations of residents while spreading costs over time.

As these investments grow, so should our commitment to tallying their impact.

Did a bond-funded program improve wildfire resilience? How many families benefited from new housing investments, and did the investments increase affordability? Did infrastructure projects deliver the benefits promised?

These are questions investors ask. The government and voters should ask them, too.

Across the private and nonprofit sectors, measuring outcomes has become standard practice. Organizations report how much they spent and demonstrate what those investments accomplished.

Public sector spending should meet that same standard — not to assign blame, but to improve future decisions.

While California already requires agencies to report on bond expenditures, compliance is inconsistent and the reports often emphasize dollars spent rather than results achieved. That leaves legislators, taxpayers and future voters without a clear picture of what worked, what didn’t and what can be improved.

As a measured next step, Assembly Bill 1754, authored by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, would require statewide bond measures to define clear objectives, establish meaningful ways to measure progress, and collect data to evaluate success and publicly report — in a simple-to-read format — whether those outcomes are being achieved. Think of it as a one-page report card.

The cost of reporting would be covered through bond administration rather than the state’s general fund.

It’s been suggested that this new requirement may slow project funding or create unnecessary paperwork. However, defining a project’s evaluation criteria would logically flow from the objectives proposed for issuing the bonds. The expected reporting is brief: a sentence or a single number per project, part of a one or two-page summary.

Accountability and efficiency are not competing values. In fact, better outcome reporting can help policymakers identify successful investments, improve future bond programs and build stronger public confidence in how taxpayer dollars are used.

That confidence matters. California will continue asking voters to invest in schools, housing, transportation, water infrastructure and climate resilience. Those investments deserve broad public confidence.

The strongest argument for future bond measures isn’t simply that California has important needs — it’s that the government can demonstrate previous investments achieved meaningful results.

Evidence builds trust. Trust strengthens confidence in public institutions. And confidence makes it possible to continue investing in California’s future.

Cathy Cockrum Dean is president and founder of Elevate California. This commentary was written for CalMatters.