For Safeena Husain, who runs Educate Girls, the process was as satisfying as the results.
Instead of having to send tedious reports to a donor about how she was spending money, she concentrated on solving problems.
Educate Girls found, for example, that many pupils could not do long division
because they did not understand the concept of place value. So its workers taught remedial classes.
IDinsight, the independent assessor, found that the main boost to children's test scores came in the third year of the programme, when Educate Girls hit its stride.
Creating the development-impact bond was also complicated and time-consuming.
Staff from several organisations spent months pinning down what Educate Girls would aim to achieve,
how progress would be measured and what would be repaid. Outside experts were drafted in.
The randomised controlled trial that IDinsight used to assess the teaching was, like many such trials, neither simple nor cheap.
More development-impact bonds are now under way or under discussion,
some involving big donors like the World Bank, USAID and DfID (America's and Britain's aid agencies).
But they will probably remain infrequent oddities in the aid landscape.
Not only are they complex, ponderous and costly; they also offer small returns to investors.
And, as Emily Gustafsson-Wright of Brookings points out, no one can yet say for certain that they are better than other ways of delivering aid.
They are useful, even so. The problem with much aid (and social spending in general) is that inputs are scrutinised more closely than results.
Experimenting during a project is hard or impossible.
It would be good if development-impact bonds teach donors to give charities freer rein and to focus on outcomes.
Rajasthani girls are not the only people with lessons to learn.