1. ENHANCED HOMESTEAD
FOOD PRODUCTION FOR
IMPROVED FOOD
SECURITY AND
NUTRITION IN BURKINA
FASO
Helen Keller International (HKI) and
the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

2. E-HFP program in Burkina Faso
 Burkina Faso
 Eastern region, Gourma
Province, Fada district
 Sahel
 Water shortages inhibit
having a second cultivation
season
 High prevalence of acute
and chronic malnutrition
 Food insecurity
 Suboptimal maternal and
child nutrition and health
practices
 Limited availability of and
access to health services

3. Overall objective of the E-HFP
Program in Burkina Faso
 To improve the nutritional status of infants and young
children through a set of production and nutrition
interventions targeted to women with children 3-12
months of age through three primary program impact
pathways
1. Increased availability of micronutrient-rich foods through
household production during the secondary agriculture
season.
2. Income generation through the sale of surplus household
production.
3. Increased knowledge and adoption of optimal nutritional
practices including consumption of micronutrient-rich
foods

4. Program theory framework for HKI’s E-HFP
program in Burkina Faso
Inputs Process Outputs Outcomes Impact
Agriculture and Village Model Establishment Improvements Increased Increased Income Women’s
zoological inputs Farms (VMF) of individual in fruit and availability of empowerment
distributed established farms (40 vegetable micronutrient improved
women per production -rich fruits
village) and
HKI, APRG and Training in vegetables
governmental plant and Women’s assets
structures animal Improvements increased
in small Increased
(Ministries of production
techniques for ruminant and availability of
Health, Improved
poultry food from
Agriculture, master trainers maternal and
production animal origin
Animals, child health
Improvements in
Environment, and and nutrition
Training in Training in household
the Promotion of outcomes
plant and plant and Adoption of consumption
Women, local
authorities and animal animal agriculture
officials) work production production practices
together techniques for techniques for
Village Farm beneficiaries
Leaders (VFL) Improvements in
Beneficiaries
nutrition and
Develop a training received and
feeding practices
strategy in animal; understood
BCC training for children,
and plant agriculture
on ENA pregnant women
production training
practices for and breastfeeding
techniques mothers
master trainers
Develop a
behavior change Improvements in
communication BCC training BCC training Beneficiaries Adoption of care & hygiene
(BCC) strategy on ENA on ENA received and ENA practices for
with regards to practices for practices for understood practices by children, pregnant
Essential village health beneficiaries BCC training beneficiaries women and
Nutrition Actions workers on ENA breastfeeding
(ENA) (VHW) practices mothers

5. Study Design
 Longitudinal impact evaluation
 Social network census
 Operations research
 Qualitative research on gender related topics
including ownership and control over
agricultural assets

6. Impact Evaluation
 Cluster randomized design
 30 intervention villages (~1200 households and 120 village farm
leaders (VFL))
 15 “older women leader” villages (OWL)
 15 “health committee” villages (HC)
 15 control villages (~800 households)
 Longitudinal
 Baseline Feb-Apr 2010 (target children 3-12 months of age)
 Endline Feb-Apr 2012 (target children 21-40 months of age)
 Household interview
 Male household head and female key respondent including
gender disaggregated modules on asset ownership, agricultural
production, income, household expenditures, knowledge on
nutrition, household food security, dietary diversity, etc.
 Anthropometric measures and hemoglobin status of target
children

7. Operations Research and GAAP
Qualitative Research
Operations Research GAAP Qualitative
Research
Random sample Beneficiaries: n=120 Beneficiaries: n=145
of beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries: n=60 Non-beneficiaries: n=75
and non-
beneficiaries
Purposive sample VFL: n=60 VFL: n=60
of key informants OWL: n=30 OWL: n=30
HC: n=30 HC: n=30
Master agriculture trainers: n=18 Land owners: n=30
Master nutrition trainers: n=24 Focus groups: n=24
(12m; 12f)
Data collection May-June 2011 May-June 2011
May-June 2012 May-June 2012
Methods Semi-structured interviews Semi-structured
interviews and focus

8. Key Questions for GAAP
Key Questions Impact Social Qualitativ Analysi
evaluatio network e s
n census research Status
How do women and men view ownership of assets? x On-
going
Did the EHFP program increase women’s ownership of x Complet
assets? e
Did the EHFP program also influence men’s asset holdings? x Complet
e
Were women able to maintain control over the EHFP x x Complet
activities and outputs? e
Did the land agreements and/or project activities influence x Complet
community norms related to women’s land ownership or land e
rights?
What trade-offs were women required to make in order to x On-
participate in the EHFP program? going
Did exposure to nutrition education diffused through village x Complet
health committee members (HC) increase knowledge and e
uptake of new practices as compared to that diffused
through older women leaders (OWL) or vice versa?

9. Did the EHFP program increase women’s
and/or men’s ownership of assets?

10. Ownership of assets: Household
durables and agricultural assets
35 9
8 ***
30 7
6
25 5
4
20 3 ***
2
15 1
0
10
5
0
Men's Men's Women's Women's
durables durables durables durables
baseline endline baseline endline
Treatment Control Treatment Control
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did not receive any program services. All estimates controlled for baseline
age, sex, clustering, and attrition. All values are coefficient (SE). *** p <0.01

11. Ownership of assets: livestock
25
**
20
15
10
***
5
0
Men's small livestock Men's small livestock Women's small Women's small
baseline endline livestock baseline livestock endline
Treatment Control
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did not receive any program services. All estimates controlled for baseline
age, sex, clustering, and attrition. All values are coefficient (SE). * *p<0.05, *** p <0.01

12. Were women able to maintain control over
the EHFP activities and outputs?

13. Control over EHFP activities and
outputs: Gardens, seeds, and
vegetables
Operations research: Round Operations research: Round
1 (2011) 2 (2012)
100% 100%
90%
90%
80%
70% 80%
60%
50% 70%
40% 60%
30%
20% 50%
10% 40%
0%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Responsible Owns land Makes Manages
for care of for garden decisions revenue
garden on produce generated
Beneficiary Husband Joint Beneficiary Husband Joint

14. Control over EHFP activities and
outputs: Chickens
Operations research: Round Operations research: Round
1 (2011) 2 (2012)
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Allowed to sell Keeps income from Responsible for Keeps income from
chickens chickens decicions on chickens chickens
Beneficiary Husband Beneficiary Husband

15. Control over EHFP activities and
outputs: Goats
Operations research: Round Operations research: Round
1 (2011) 2 (2012)
80% 80%
70% 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Who makes decisions Who makes decisions Who keeps income
Beneficiary Husband Joint Beneficiary Husband Joint

16. Did the land agreements and/or project activities
influence community norms related to women’s
land ownership or land rights?

17. Community norms related to women’s
land ownership and land rights: Land
acquisition
 Land for agricultural purposes is
primarily obtained through inheritance
and gifts.
 In general, men obtain land through
inheritance.
 Women generally obtain land through
marriage/widowhood or through gifts.

18. Community norms related to women’s land
ownership and land rights: Obstacles to owning
land
 Respondents in both beneficiary villages (56%m-63%f) and non-
beneficiary villages (46%m-51%f) reported obstacles to
women’s ability to own land, mainly due to traditional / social
barriers
 The most commonly cited ways to improve women’s ability to
own land were to:
 Discontinue traditional customs and practices
 Sensitize stakeholder’s about women’s ability to own land
 Grant pieces of land to women
 Respondents in both beneficiary villages (36%m-40%f) and non-
beneficiary villages (24%m-36%f) reported obstacles to
women’s ability to use land, mainly due to lack of inputs such
as seeds, fertilizers or tools and lack of rainfall as well as
traditional practices.
 The most commonly cited ways to improve women’s ability to use
land were to:
 Provision of inputs
 Sensitize stakeholder’s about women’s ability to own land
 Grant pieces of land to women

19. Community norms related to women’s land
ownership and land rights: Perceived changes in
women’s ability to own and use land by both
women and men
Women Men
HC OWL All Control HC OWL All Control
(n=70) (n=75) (n=145) (n=75) (n=58) (n=60) (n=118) (n=63)
Change in 46 (66) 49 (65) 95 (62) 11 (15) 32 (55) 36 (60) 68 (57) 14 (22)
opinion
about who
can own
and use
land
Change in 18 (26) 15 (20) 33 (23) 1 (1) 16 (28) 15 (25) 31 (26) 2 (3)
ability to
own land
Change in 29 (41) 32 (43) 61 (42) 3 (4) 27 (47) 21 (35) 48 (41) 1 (2)
ability to
use land

20. Trade-offs required for participation
in the EHFP program
 Only 11% of beneficiaries (13/118) stated that
taking care of the garden interferes with their
other activities (e.g. outside work and domestic
tasks).
 None of the beneficiary women interviewed
thought that taking care of their chickens
interfered with their other activities.
 18% of women (16/89) stated that there were
costs to working at the VMF including having to
neglect their domestic work, taking care of their
children, not being able to go to the market, and
that it takes time to go and work at the VMF.

21. Did exposure to nutrition education diffused through village health
committee members (HC) increase knowledge and uptake of new
practices as compared to that diffused through older women leaders
(OWL) or vice versa?

22. Impact of the EHFP program on
nutrition knowledge: IYCF practices
Children < 6 Begin Begin
Give breast months of age giving giving
Give
milk within should not liquids semi-solid
colostru
the first drink any other than foods at 6
m to
hour after liquids other breast milk months of
children
birth than breast at 6 months age
milk of age
N=1,138 N=1,144 N=1,129 N=1,142 N=1,149
OWL
0.16*** 0.092*** 0.23** 0.13** 0.13**
villages
(0.054) (0.029) (0.094) (0.063) (0.055)
HC villages 0.17*** 0.080*** 0.23*** 0.19*** 0.17***
(0.052) (0.029) (0.078) (0.059) (0.059)
p-value 0.006 0.009 0.006 0.007 0.011
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did not receive any program services. Estimates
controlled for baseline age, sex, clustering, and attrition. ** p < 0.05, *** p<0.01

23. Impact of the EHFP program on health-
related knowledge: Hand-washing practices
50%
**
45%
40%
35%
30% Control villages
25%
Older women leader
20%
villages
15% Health committee
10% villages
5%
0%
Before feeding a Before feeding a
child, baseline child, endline
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did not receive any program services. Estimates
controlled for baseline age, sex, clustering, and attrition. ** p < 0.05

24. Impact of the EHFP program on IYCF practices:
Breastfeeding practices among children 3-12
months of age at endline
100%
90%
80%
70% **
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Child ever breastfed
Initiated breastfeeding < 1 hbreastfeeding, children < 6 mo children <
Exclusively after birth
Predominately breastfed,
Control villages Older women leader villages
Health committee villages
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did not receive any program services. Estimates
controlled for baseline age, sex, clustering, and attrition. ** p < 0.05

25. Impact of the EHFP program on IYCF practices:
Dietary diversity among children 3-12 months of age
at baseline
25%
* Met minimum
dietary
20%
diversity
requirement
15% n=691
Older women
0.12*
10% leaders
(0.070)
Health committee 0.098
5% (0.077)
p-value 0.14
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did
not receive any program services. All
0% estimates controlled for baseline
age, sex, clustering, and attrition. All values
Met minimum dietary Met minimum dietary are coefficient (SE). * p<0.10
diversity requirement at diversity requirement at
baseline endline
Control villages Older women leader villages
Health committee villages

26. Impact of the EHFP program on infant and young
child feeding practices: Intake of iron-rich foods
among children 3-12 months of age at baseline
70%
60% ** Iron-rich
foods
50%
n=662
40% Older women
0.15**
leaders
30%
(0.072)
20% Health
0.023
committee
10%
(0.090)
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did
0% p-value 0.13
not receive any program services. All
estimates controlled for baseline
Had iron-rich foods at Had iron-rich foods at age, sex, clustering, and attrition. All values
are coefficient (SE). * *p<0.05
baseline endline
Control villages Older women leader villages
Health committee villages

27. Impact of the EHFP program on nutritional status
of children: Hemoglobin among children 3-12
months of age at baseline
10.0
9.8 *
Hemoglobin
9.6 (g/dL)
n=1144
9.4
Older women
0.24
leaders
9.2
(0.31)
Health committee 0.49*
9.0
(0.27)
8.8 p-value 0.19
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did
not receive any program services. All
estimates controlled for baseline
8.6 age, sex, clustering, and attrition. All values
are coefficient (SE). * p<0.10
Baseline hemoglobin (g/dL) Endline hemoglobin (g/dL)
Control villages Older women leader villages
Health committee villages

28. Change in hemoglobin from baseline to endline
among children 3-5.9 months of age at baseline
10.0
9.8 ** Hemoglobin
(g/dL)
9.6 n=449
Older women
0.044
9.4 leaders
(0.32)
9.2 Health committee 0.76**
(0.30)
9.0 p-value 0.043
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did
not receive any program services. All
8.8 estimates controlled for baseline
age, sex, clustering, and attrition. All values
are coefficient (SE). * *p<0.05
8.6
Baseline hemoglobin (g/dL) Endline hemoglobin (g/dL)
Control villages Older women leader villages
Health committee villages

29. Impact of the EHFP program on nutritional status
of children: HAZ among children 3-12 months of
age at baseline
0.0
-0.2 Baseline HAZ Endline HAZ
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
-2.0
Control villages Older women leader villages Health committee villages

30. Impact of the E-HFP program on nutritional status
of children: Wasting among children 3-12 months
of age at baseline
35%
30%
25%
20%
Control villages
15% Older women leader villages
Health committee villages
10%
5%
0%
Baseline prevalence of Endline prevalence of
wasting wasting

31. Summary
Key Question Summary
Did the EHFP program increase Yes, the E-HFP program had a positive impact
women’s ownership of assets? on women's ownership of agricultural assets
and small livestock.
Did the EHFP program also influence Yes, the E-HFP program had a negative
men’s asset holdings? impact on men's ownership of agricultural
assets which was about equal to the positive
impact on women’s ownership of agricultural
assets. The program had a positive impact on
men’s ownership of small livestock which was
larger than that for women.
Were women able to maintain control Yes, especially in regards to the garden
over the EHFP activities and outputs? activities. The vast majority of women were
primarily responsible for decisions related to
what to grow in the garden and were able to
keep the income generated from the sale of
the produce.

32. Summary
Key Question Summary
Did the land agreements and/or project Yes, in beneficiary villages some change was
activities influence community norms noted in people’s opinions about who could
related to women’s land ownership or own and use land. In addition both men and
land rights? women in beneficiary villages reported that
women’s ability to own and use land had
actually changed in the past two years whereas
this was rarely reported in control villages.
What trade-offs were women required Only about 11% of respondents reported that
to make in order to participate in the taking care of their gardens affected their other
EHFP program? activities. 18% said that working at the VMF
had costs (e.g. time and neglect of domestic
work).
Did exposure to nutrition education There do seem to be some differences
diffused through village health although there is not yet a clear pattern of
committee members (HC) increase effects by method of dissemination. Analysis of
knowledge and uptake of new practices related data is on-going.
as compared to that diffused through
older women leaders (OWL) or vice
versa?