Evidence is emerging from rigorous evaluations about the effectiveness of nutrition-sensitive agriculture programmes in improving nutritional outcomes. Additional evidence can elucidate how different programme components and pathways contribute and can be optimized for impact. The International Food Policy Research Institute, with Helen Keller International, designed a comprehensive framework to evaluate the delivery, utilization, and impact of Helen Keller International's enhanced homestead food production programme in Burkina Faso. After 18 months of implementation, a process evaluation was conducted to examine programme impact pathways, using key informant and semistructured interviews with implementing agents and beneficiaries, and with residents of control communities. Data were analyzed by International Food Policy Research Institute and reviewed with project managers and partners through multiple workshops to identify opportunities to strengthen implementation. Findings illuminated gaps between intended and actual delivery schemes, including input constraints, knowledge gaps among community agents in agriculture and young child nutrition practices, and lower than expected activity by community volunteers. In response, staff developed measures to overcome water constraints and expand vegetable and poultry production, retrained volunteers in certain techniques of food production and counselling for nutrition behaviour change, added small incentives to motivate volunteers, and shaped both immediate and long-term changes to the programme model. Working closely with International Food Policy Research Institute on the evaluation activities also expanded the repertoire of research methods and skills of Helen Keller International staff. Process evaluation can strengthen programme delivery, utilization, and design. Collaboration between researchers and implementers can improve programme effectiveness, project staff capacity, and advance delivery science.

This article uses a mixed-methods approach to analyse the impact of an integrated agriculture and nutrition programme in Burkina Faso on women’s and men’s assets, and norms regarding ownership, use and control of assets. We use a cluster-randomised controlled trial to determine whether productive asset transfers and increased income-generating opportunities for women increase women’s assets over time. Qualitative work on gender norms finds that although men still own and control most assets, women have greater decision-making power and control over home gardens and their produce, and attitudes towards women owning property have become more favourable in treatment areas.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), established in 1975, provides evidence-based policy solutions to sustainably end hunger and malnutrition and reduce poverty. The Institute conducts research, communicates results, optimizes partnerships, and builds capacity to ensure sustainable food production, promote healthy food systems, improve markets and trade, transform agriculture, build resilience, and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is considered in all of the Institute's work. IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world, including development implementers, public institutions, the private sector, and farmers' organizations, to ensure that local, national, regional, and global food policies are based on evidence. IFPRI is a member of the CGIAR Consortium.

Success of nutrition-sensitive agriculture programmes targeted to women may be influenced by increased demands on women's and other household members' time and by time-related trade-offs to accommodate programme participation. However, evidence of how such programmes impact time use and whether changes in timerelated demands negatively influence maternal or child health and nutrition outcomes is limited. This paper examines the impact of Helen Keller International's Enhanced Homestead Food Production programme in Burkina Faso (2010-2012) on women's and men's time use and associations between changes in women's time use and maternal and child health and nutrition outcomes. We used quantitative data from a cluster-randomized controlled trial (baseline 2010, endline 2012) and qualitative data from two rounds of process evaluation (2011, 2012). Two-stage analyses were used to first assess programme impacts on women's and men's time use using differencein-difference impact estimates and second to evaluate whether programme impacts on women's time use were associated with changes in women's and children's health and nutrition outcomes. Programme impacts were considered significant if corrected P < 0.01, and associations were considered significant if p < 0.05 and p < 0.01. Qualitative data were analysed through manual coding and by calculating the means and standard deviations for the time spent by women and men on activities in intervention and control groups. Findings show that the programme significantly increased the amount of time women spent on agriculture in the intervention compared to the control group, but this was not associated with changes in maternal or child health or nutrition outcomes. Process evaluation data supported these findings. K E Y W O R D S agriculture, Burkina Faso, children, nutrition, time use, women's health 1 | INTRODUCTION There is a growing interest in understanding how nutrition-sensitive agriculture programmes in lower-and middle-income countries (LMICs) affect maternal and child health and nutrition outcomes. These programmes are posited to reduce maternal and child undernutrition through multiple pathways, such as food intake, income, price dynamics and women's participation in agriculture (Ruel & Alderman, 2013; Ruel,

This impact evaluation has been submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of grant OW2.170 issued under Open Window 2. 3ie is making it available to the public in this final report version. All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.