Forests represent more than just a livelihood to many people in developing countries. In Bangladesh, for example, overwhelming poverty and socio-economic pressures have resulted in an unstable situation where intensive pressure on forest resources is having increasingly negative consequences for the population. Some studies have evaluated the benefits of people-oriented forestry activities from an investment, as well as a participant, point of view. In the study area located in the Tangail Forest Division, a total of 11,854 ha of woodlot, 2704 ha of agroforestry and 945 km of strip plantations have been raised in a benefit-sharing program that is inclusive of land encroachers and other economically disadvantaged people. Since 2000-2001, a total of 3716 ha of woodlot, 890 ha of agroforestry and 163 km of strip plantations have been harvested to the benefit of 6326 individuals. Investment analysis indicates that woodlot plantation is not financially viable but agroforestry is the most profitable. These results were somewhat unexpected since initial analysis suggested that the woodlot plantation profit would be greater than, or at least equal to, that of the agroforestry plantation if the number of planted seedlings per unit area was taken into account. The per unit area net present value (NPV) was highest in the agroforestry plantation ($1662) and negative in the woodlot plantation (-$397). The benefit cost ratio (BCR) was also highest in the agroforestry plantation (1.64) and lowest in the woodlot plantation (0.86). This study also showed that some individuals who were formally classified as encroachers have now become vital stakeholders. On average, participants received $800, $1866 and $1327 over the course of 13 years from strip, agroforestry and woodlot plantations, respectively. Average annual return per participant was $62, $144 and $102, respectively, which was in addition to each individual's yearly income. This added income is a significant contribution to monetary resources and improves socio-economic conditions at a grass roots level. Overall then this program can be considered a financial success as a plantation raising strategy. However, despite this financial progress, the program cannot be considered a true form of participatory people-oriented forestry because it shows serious deviations from the original concept or model for participatory people-oriented forestry that is outlined in the project document. These discrepancies are especially notable with regard to (i) beneficiary selection, (ii) gender equity, (iii) professional attitude and corruption, (iv) funding and (v) program approach. However, other countries faced with similar challenges of forest overuse and degradation may adopt this practice for achieving self-reliance and environmental stability.