1. Helen Keller International’s Enhanced-
Homestead Food Production (E-HFP) Program:
Impacts on Women's Ownership and Control Over
Assets, Nutrition-Related Knowledge, Dietary Diversity, and
Children’s and Women’s Nutritional Status
Presented by: Deanna Olney
IFPRI research team: Andrew Dillon, Mara van den Bold, Julia Behrman, Esteban Quiñones, Lilia
Bliznashka, Agnes Quisumbing and Marie Ruel
HKI program implementation team: Marcellin Ouedraogo, Abdoulaye Pedehombga, Hippolyte
Rouamba and Olivier Vebamba

2. Enhanced-Homestead Food Production (E-HFP)
program in Burkina Faso
 Targeted to women with children 3-12 months of age at
baseline
 Eastern region, Gourma Province, Fada district
 Water shortages inhibit having a second cultivation season
 High prevalence of malnutrition (stunting
30%, underweight 30%, wasting 14%, anemia 92%)
 Food insecurity
 Suboptimal maternal and child health and nutrition practices
 Limited availability, access and use of health services
 Overall goal to improve women’s and children’s nutritional
status

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

4. Comprehensive Evaluation Design
 Impact evaluation
 Cluster-randomized controlled trial
 15 “older women leader” villages (OWL villages)
 15 “health committee” villages (HC villages)
 25 control villages (Control villages)
 Longitudinal design
 Baseline Feb-May 2010
 Endline Feb-May 2012
 Quantitative household survey along with children’s growth and hemoglobin measures
 Two rounds of process evaluation including specific qualitative research on gender
related topics including ownership and control over agricultural assets
 Random sample of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
 Purposive sample of key informants
 Longitudinal design
 First round May-June 2011
 Second round May-June 2012
 Qualitative semi-structured interviews

5. Key Questions for GAAP
Key Questions Impact
evaluation
Qualitative
research
1. Did the E-HFP program influence men’s and women’s
ownership of assets?
x
2. Were women able to maintain control over the E-HFP
activities and outputs?
x x
3. Did the E-HFP program influence community norms related
to women’s land ownership or land rights?
x
4. 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?
x

6. Did the E-HFP program increase women’s
and/or men’s ownership of assets?

7. Impact of the E-HFP program on men’s and
women’s ownership of assets
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Men's
durables
baseline
Men's
durables
endline
Women's
durables
baseline
Women's
durables
endline
Treatment Control
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Men's
agriculture
assets
baseline
Men's
agriculture
assets
endline
Women's
agriculture
assets
baseline
Women's
agriculture
assets
endline
Treatment Control
***
***
Note: Comparison is to a control group that did not receive any program services. All estimates controlled for clustering, and
attrition. All values are coefficient (SE). ** p < 0.05, *** p <0.01
0
5
10
15
20
25
Men's
small
animals
baseline
Men's
small
animals
endline
Women's
small
animals
baseline
Women's
small
animals
endline
Treatment Control
***
**
Figure 1: Change in men’s
and women’s ownership of
household durables
Figure 2: Change in men’s and
women’s ownership of agriculture
assets
Figure 3: Change in men’s and
women’s ownership of small
animals

8. Were women able to maintain control over the
E-HFP activities and outputs?

9. Perceived ownership and responsibility for making
decisions and managing revenue from produce and
chickens
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Owns land for
garden (2011)
Owns land for
garden (2012)
Beneficiary Husband
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Makes decisions on
produce (2011)
Makes decisions on
produce (2012)
Beneficiary Husband
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Manages revenue
generated from produce
(2011)
Manages revenue
generated from produce
(2012)
Beneficiary Husband
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Manages revenue
generated from chickens
(2011)
Manages revenue
generated from chickens
(2012)
Beneficiary Husband

10. Did the E-HFP program influence community norms
related to women’s land ownership or land rights?

11. Perceived obstacles to women’s ability to own and
use land
 Land for agricultural production is primarily obtained through
inheritance and gifts.
 In general, men obtain land through inheritance
 Women generally obtain land through marriage/widowhood or through
gifts.
 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
 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.

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

13. Illustrative quotes from program implementers
and beneficiaries
“Thanks to HKI, women gain access
to land when they ask for it.”
“The women possess more and more
land granted by their husbands.”
“Thanks to HKI, I realized that a
woman can garden. And the case of
the VMF convinced me of the
benefit.”
“the women proved that they had
the capabilities to manage the land
well”

14. 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?

15. Impacts on maternal knowledge of optimal infant and
young child feeding (IYCF) practices and on dietary
diversity
Variable Control1
Treatment:
OWL1 DID2
Treatment:
HC1 DID2
Knowledge about IYCF practices 503 389 365
Exclusive breastfeeding until 6 mo of age
Baseline 57% 73% 64%
Endline 45% 30% 31%*** 22% 29%***
Introduction of liquids at 6 mo of age
Baseline 39% 25% 33%
Endline 54% 68% 28%*** 76% 27%***
Introduction of semi-solid foods at 6 mo of age
Baseline 41% 33% 39%
Endline 63% 73% 17%*** 76% 15%***
Dietary Diversity
Household (1-12 food groups in past 7 days) (N) 596 441 440
Baseline 5.75 5.44 5.59
(1.68) (1.91) (1.94)
Endline
5.11 5.42 0.540 5.77 0.78*
(2.14) (2.01) (0.460) (2.13) (0.430)
Children’s (4 out of 7 food groups in past 24 hours) (N) 310 220 231
Baseline 3% 3% 2%
Endline 6% 15% 8.6% 18% 12.9%*
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

16. Summary
 From the impact evaluation and process evaluations we found positive
impacts of the E-HFP program in treatment compared to control
villages on:
 Women’s agriculture asset ownership (with a similar size negative impact
on men’s ownership of agriculture assets) (combined treatment groups
compared to control).
 Women’s and men’s ownership of small animals (combined treatment
groups compared to control).
 Women's nutrition-related knowledge (Both HC and OWL compared to
control).
 Women’s ability to maintain and increase their control over products,
assets and revenue related to the E-HFP program products.
 Changes in perceptions and opinions about who can own and use land for
agricultural production (combined treatment groups compared to control)
 We also found positive impacts on dietary diversity but these positive
impacts were limited to HC compared to control villages.

17. Conclusions
 Women’s participation in the E-HFP program increases their ownership
and control over agriculture assets, has a positive influence on
changing perceptions related to women’s ability to own and use land
for agriculture purposes and improves their health and nutrition-
related knowledge.
 These positive changes were likely related to the positive changes we
found on household and children’s dietary diversity although these
were limited to HC villages.
 Increasing women’s control over assets – specifically financial and
physical assets such as land – has been shown to have positive impacts
on food security, child nutrition, education, and women’s own well-
being (Quisumbing 2003; Smith et al. 2003; World Bank 2001).

18. Acknowledgements
 Study participants
 Helen Keller International (HKI) – especially the core E-HFP team in
Burkina Faso (Abdoulaye Pedehombga, Marcellin Ouedraogo, Hippolyte
Rouamba, Olivier Vebamba)
 Data collectors in Burkina Faso
 Research team at IFPRI and Michigan State University: Andrew Dillon, Julia
Behrman, Esteban Quiñones, Mara van den Bold, Malek Abu-Jawdeh, Lilia
Bliznashka, Agnes Quisumbing and Marie Ruel
 Funding:
 The Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID)
 Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project (GAAP), supported by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation
 CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) led by
the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

19. THANKS!