Universe
What counts as an NGO is an important question for a survey like this one. No answer is self-evident, and the definition chosen depends in large part on the purpose of the research. Because the objective of this research project was to analyze NGOs that are involved in what the donors and government call ''development,'' organizations were deemed NGOs if they appeared on any of the lists used to synthesize the sample frame, or, if the NGOs were discovered during the field enumeration, reports from informed observers suggested that the NGOs were engaged in activities that are generally considered development work in Bangladesh, such as the provision of safe drinking water, sanitation, health care, adult and child education, agricultural training, roads construction, transport, skills training, land rights/tenure, credit, arsenic reduction, environmental work, employment generation, poverty reduction, advocacy in any of these areas, or other related topics. Although the survey questionnaire itself focused on the attributes of NGOs as service providers, they did not have to be engaged in service provision to be included in the sample frame; NGOs engaged in ''consciousness raising'' were also included. In fact, as the results below show, most NGOs were involved in both service provision and consciousness raising. Registration with the NAB is a precondition for obtaining foreign funding in Bangladesh. Because that list constituted an important element of the initial sample frame, the NGOs that were surveyed were typically those that had either applied for foreign funding or that might have considered themselves in a position to do so. The Department of Social Services keeps a separate list of ''social welfare'' or non-profit organizations in the country. That list is much broader than the list kept by the NAB, includes organizations as diverse as mosques, trade unions, tea clubs, and local sports leagues, and includes over 23,000 organizations. That list was not used for the construction of the sample frame because the activities of those organizations, while important for understanding the broader context of civil society organizations in Bangladesh, were not the subject of this research.
Two final points should be emphasized. First, the site to which the questionnaires were applied were the field branches of NGOs (and the headquarters offices of smaller NGOs if the headquarters offices were also engaged in direct development work with communities). Most NGOs in Bangladesh, even the smaller ones, had both field offices and headquarters. Because central headquarters often did not have comprehensive information about the activities and resources of field offices, the survey was applied to the branches themselves. A detailed analysis of the resources and governance of the branches from the point of view of the headquarters staff, while important both to validate the findings at the branch level and to obtain a fuller portrait of resources, the flow of funds, and governance, was beyond the scope of this study.
Second, the data presented here were provided by the NGO managers, and there may be discrepancies between self-reporting and what a thorough review of accounts, based on an external audit, might have revealed.