Baseline Study of the ViMPlus Resilience 
Food Security Activity (RFSA) in Burkina Faso: 
Final Report
October 2021 |Volume I
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning Associate Award
ABOUT IMPEL
The Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning (IMPEL) Associate Award works to improve the design and implementation of 
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA)-funded resilience food security activities (RFSAs) through implementer-led 
evaluations and knowledge sharing. Funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) BHA, IMPEL 
will gather information and knowledge in order to measure performance of RFSAs, strengthen accountability, and improve 
guidance and policy. This information will help the food security community of practice and USAID to design projects and 
modify existing projects in ways that bolster performance, efficiency, and effectiveness. IMPEL is a seven-year activity (2019-
2026) implemented by Save the Children (lead), TANGO International, Tulane University, Causal Design, and Innovations for 
Poverty Action.
Cooperative Agreement Number: 72DFFP19LA00003
RECOMMENDED CITATION
IMPEL. (2021). Baseline Study of the ViMPlus Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I). 
Washington, DC: The Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning Associate Award
STUDY TEAM 
Tim Frankenberger Management Oversight
Jeanne Downen Chief of Party
Mark Langworthy, PhD Management Oversight/Survey Methods Specialist
Victoria Brown, PhD Senior Research Methodologist/CAPI Specialist
Monica Mueller Senior Qualitative Specialist/Quality Assurance
PHOTO CREDITS
Libre de Droi
DISCLAIMER
This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning (IMPEL) 
award and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 
CONTACT INFORMATION
IDEAL Activity
c/o Save the Children
899 North Capitol Street NE, Suite #900
Washington, DC 20002
www.fsnnetwork.org
IMPEL@savechildren.org 
PREPARED BY: 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Acknowledgments i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank several individuals for the support they provided to the baseline study of the 
Victory Against Malnutrition Plus (ViMPlus) Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) in Burkina Faso, 
starting with staff from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for 
Humanitarian Assistance (BHA): Mara Mordini, Benita O’Colmain, Mariko Dramane, and Oumar Moussa 
S. Diallo. We wish to acknowledge Ibrahima Issa Bagna and Zakou Issaka Moussa and other staff at 
Bagna Solutions for their work in organizing the training and logistics for the survey and conducting the 
data collection. In addition, we would like to thank the independent survey monitors Christophe Zouré 
and Hervé Jean-Louis Guene. We are grateful for the support of the ViMPlus RFSA technical and M&E 
staff for contributing to the development of training materials, providing technical presentations to the 
field teams in advance of fieldwork, and reviewing the report. Lastly, we wish to thank all of the gracious 
people in the ViMPlus areas who took the time to be interviewed for this survey.
In terms of Technical Assistance to NGOs (TANGO) International, we are grateful to Thomas Bower, Lynn 
Michalopoulos, and Carrie Presnall for their support in conducting additional analysis and in finalizing 
this report.
Sincerely,
Tim Frankenberger
TANGO International
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
ii Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments...............................................................................................i
List of Tables and Figures....................................................................................v
Acronyms...........................................................................................................vi
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................vii
1. Introduction...................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview of the Baseline Study .....................................................................................................1
1.2 Background on BHA RFSA...............................................................................................................1
1.3 Country Context.............................................................................................................................2
1.3.1 Background ...................................................................................................................2
1.3.2 Overview of the Current Food Security Situation.........................................................3
2. Methodology and Limitations........................................................................5
2.1 Study Design...................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Sample Design................................................................................................................................5
2.3 Questionnaire Design.....................................................................................................................5
2.4 Field Procedures.............................................................................................................................9
2.4.1 Timing of the Survey .....................................................................................................9
2.4.2 Listing Exercise ..............................................................................................................9
2.4.3 Training .......................................................................................................................10
2.4.4 Pilot .............................................................................................................................11
2.4.5 Fieldwork.....................................................................................................................11
2.5 Data Analysis................................................................................................................................11
2.5.1 Sampling Weights........................................................................................................11
2.5.2 Indicator Definitions and Tabulations.........................................................................12
2.6 Study Limitations and Issues Encountered ..................................................................................12
2.6.1 Study Limitations.........................................................................................................12
2.6.2 Issues Encountered During Fieldwork.........................................................................14
2.7 Qualitative Data ...........................................................................................................................15
3. Findings .......................................................................................................16
3.1 Characteristics of the Study Population.......................................................................................16
3.2 Activity Participation....................................................................................................................18
3.3 Household Food Security .............................................................................................................19
3.3.1 Relationship between Crops Harvested and FCS........................................................21
3.3.2 Practices Associated with Household Food Security ..................................................22
3.4 Agriculture....................................................................................................................................24
3.4.1 Type of Land Access and Farmland Size......................................................................24
3.4.2 Use of Financial Services.............................................................................................26
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Table of Contents iii
3.4.3 Use of Improved Post-Harvest Handling and Storage Practices.................................26
3.4.4 Use of Improved Crop Practices..................................................................................27
3.4.5 Use of Improved Livestock Practices...........................................................................34
3.4.6 Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Practices.....................................................36
3.5 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene ....................................................................................................37
3.5.1 Drinking Water Source................................................................................................37
3.5.2 Sanitation Facility........................................................................................................39
3.5.3 Handwashing Station ..................................................................................................39
3.5.4 Knowledge of Critical Moments for Handwashing.......................................................39
3.6 Women’s Health and Nutrition....................................................................................................40
3.6.1 Women’s Minimum Dietary Diversity.........................................................................40
3.6.2 Antenatal Care ............................................................................................................42
3.6.3 Contraceptive Methods ..............................................................................................43
3.7 Children’s Health and Nutrition ...................................................................................................44
3.7.1 Children’s Minimum Dietary Diversity........................................................................44
3.7.2 Diarrhea and Oral Rehydration Therapy.....................................................................45
3.8 Gender..........................................................................................................................................46
3.8.1 Gender and Cash-Earning Activities............................................................................46
3.8.2 Gender and Group Participation.................................................................................47
3.8.3 Gender Differences in Access to and Decisions About Credit ....................................47
3.9 Resilience......................................................................................................................................48
3.9.1 Perceptions of Local Government Capacity to Respond Effectively to Future Shocks 
and Stressors................................................................................................................................49
3.9.2 Social Capital ...............................................................................................................49
3.9.3 Household Participation in Group-Based Savings, Micro-Finance, or Lending 
Programs .....................................................................................................................................49
4. Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................51
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
iv Table of Contents
Volume II Annexes
Annex 1: FFP Burkina Faso and Niger Baseline Protocol
Annex 1a: Revisions to Sampling and Selected Villages
Annex 1b: Training Agendas
Annex 1c: Informed Consent Statement
Annex 2: Questionnaire
Volume III Annexes
Annex 3: 2020 Burkina Faso BHA RFSA Baseline Study Personnel
Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis
Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators – VimPlus 
Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 
Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 
Annex 8: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts, and Coping Strategies
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
List of Tables and Figures v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Geographic coverage BHA RFSA, Burkina Faso...............................................................................1
Table 2: Indicators measured in the baseline NPE survey............................................................................7
Table 3: Response rates by sampling group, Burkina Faso 2020 RFSA Baseline Survey.............................12
Table 4: Household Characteristics.............................................................................................................18
Table 5: Percent distribution of farmers in the RFSA area by crop, sex, and age.......................................25
Table 6: Heat Map of Adoption of Targeted Improved Crop Practices and Technologies by Crop...............28
Table 7: Percent Distribution of Sorghum Farmers by Sex and Age in the RFSA Area ...............................29
Table 8: Percent Distribution of Cowpea Farmers by Sex and Age in the RFSA Area.................................31
Table 9: Percent Distribution of Rice Farmers by Sex and Age in the RFSA Area.......................................32
Table 10: Percent Distribution of Goat, Sheep, and Poultry Farmers by Sex and Age ...............................34
Table 11: Heat Map of Adoption of Targeted Improved Livestock Practices and Technologies................34
Table 12: Summary of Targeted Improved Practices..................................................................................36
Figure 1: Seasonal Calendar for a Typical Year, Burkina Faso.......................................................................4
Figure 2: Share of Key Demographic Groups from the Overall Population................................................17
Figure 3: Household Receipt of Social Assistance (From Any Source) Among Direct and Indirect RFSA 
Participants.................................................................................................................................................19
Figure 4: Mean FCS and Distribution of Households by FCS Group............................................................20
Figure 5: Frequency of Consumption of Food Groups................................................................................21
Figure 6: Distribution of Households by Percentage of Harvest Completed..............................................21
Figure 7: Summary of Statistically Significant Findings from the Bivariate Analyses of Household Food 
Consumption Score.....................................................................................................................................23
Figure 8: Type of Land Access by Farmer’s Sex...........................................................................................25
Figure 9: Farmland Owned (Hectares) by Sex and Age of Farmer (% of Farmers) .....................................26
Figure 10: Sorghum Farmers Adopting Targeted Improved Crop Practices (%).........................................30
Figure 11: Cowpea Farmers Adopting Targeted Improved Crop Practices (%) ..........................................32
Figure 12: Rice Farmers Adopting Targeted Improved Crop Practices (%).................................................33
Figure 13: Farmers Adopting Targeted Improved Livestock Practices, by Livestock Type (%)...................35
Figure 14: Household Sanitation Facility ....................................................................................................39
Figure 15: Percentage of Households with Knowledge of the Critical Moments for Handwashing ..........40
Figure 16: Food Groups Consumed by Women 15-49 Years......................................................................41
Figure 17: Statistically Significant Associations between MDD-W and Intervention-Specific Factors.......42
Figure 18: Food Groups Consumed by Children 6-23 Months, Past 24 Hours...........................................44
Figure 19: Gender Gap in Access to and Decisions about Credit................................................................48
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
vi Acronyms
ACRONYMS
ANC Antenatal care
BHA Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance
DFSA Development Food Security Activity
RFSA Resilience Food Security Activity
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FCS Food Consumption Score 
FFP Food for Peace 
FMNR Farmer-managed natural resource generation
GDI Gender Development Index
GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System
HDI Human Development Index
IMPEL Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
IP Implementing partner 
MCHN Maternal and child health and nutrition
MDD-C Minimum dietary diversity – children
MDD-W Minimum dietary diversity – women 
ODK Open Data Kit
OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
PBS Population-based survey
RISE Resilience in the Sahel-Enhanced
TANGO Technical Assistance to Non-governmental Organizations
ToT Training of trainers
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States dollar
ViMPlus Victory Against Malnutrition Plus
VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association
WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene
WFP World Food Programme
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Executive Summary vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a baseline study of the five-year resilience food security activity (RFSA) Victory Against 
Malnutrition Plus (ViMPlus) funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA). VimPlus, part of the Resilience in the Sahel-Enhanced (RISE) 
initiative, is implemented in eight communes in the Centre Nord region of Burkina Faso by ACDI/VOCA in 
partnership with Save the Children and Tufts University. The goal of the RFSA is to address critical 
challenges in food security, nutrition, and poverty, and to improve the resilience of households and 
communities.
The RFSA implements activities across technical sectors, layering and sequencing interventions at 
individual and household levels. Key interventions are designed around improving food access and 
incomes through agriculture and other livelihoods initiatives; combating undernutrition, especially for 
children under two and pregnant and lactating women; enhancing natural resource and environment 
management; and mitigating disaster impact through early warning and preparedness activities. 
Under the Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning (IMPEL) Associate Award, Technical Assistance to 
NGOs (TANGO) International conducted the baseline study with its local partner, Bagna Solutions. The 
purpose of the study is to provide baseline population-level estimates for a limited number of 
intermediate but critical outcome indicators and a limited number of additional indicators proposed by 
the USAID Mission and implementing partners (IPs) as a comparison for the interim performance and 
final evaluations. Baseline study results will be used to refine program targeting and, where possible, 
inform program design.
Study Design
The baseline study included a representative population-based survey of 775 households. Data 
collection was scheduled to commence in early 2020 (March-April) and end by April 23, 2020, before the 
start of Ramadan, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, fieldwork was suspended until local regulations 
and conditions indicated that face-to-face interviewing could safely resume with COVID-19 mitigation 
procedures in place. The survey was conducted in September 2020 and ended at the start of the harvest 
period in October 2020. A stratified multi-stage clustered sample design was used to provide a 
statistically representative sample. The questionnaire was streamlined for a non-permissive 
environment. Estimates of impact-level indicators pertaining to poverty and anthropometry were 
expected to be derived from the RISE II baseline survey, scheduled to occur a few months after the BHA 
RFSA baseline survey. To contextualize and help interpret PBS baseline quantitative findings, the 
baseline study incorporates qualitative data from relevant recent studies conducted in Burkina Faso, 
primarily qualitative data from the USAID RISE I impact evaluation endline conducted in 
September/October 2020.
Study Limitations
The first study limitation was that, data collection was rescheduled due to COVID-19 restrictions, and 
despite efforts to finish the survey before the harvest period in October, data collection ended on 
October 11. Because of this and because RFSA interventions began before the survey could be 
conducted, the estimates may not necessarily reflect a true baseline. Second, the plan to derive poverty 
and anthropometry indicators from the RISE II baseline survey was complicated by the delay of RISE II 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
viii Executive Summary
baseline data collection, which could result in differences in price and market data, which will also likely 
be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, most data collected for the household survey are self￾reported. Steps taken to minimize the effect of errors inherent in self-reporting include i) applying 
conversion factors to render non-standard units suitable for analysis; ii) obtaining and checking 
responses against plausible weight ranges for livestock; and iii) identifying outliers in plot size and 
livestock weights. Several post-data collection processing routines were performed to address outliers, 
but no further analysis of yield data was performed. Finally, the study design uses a higher-than-usual 
non-response factor of 25 percent to account for potential non-response and field teams were specially 
trained in how to address non-response.
Key Findings and Conclusions
This section outlines conclusions and recommendations for the BHA ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso. 
Because the 2020 baseline study did not include a qualitative component, data from secondary 
qualitative sources were used to help interpret and contextualize the results and inform conclusions and 
recommendations. Conclusions and recommendations were refined based on feedback received from 
implementing partners during a baseline findings presentation. 
Food Security
Baseline estimates indicated higher-than-expected food consumption with the majority of households 
meeting the threshold for acceptable food consumption. Consumption of staples, such as bread and 
sorghum, and pulses is widespread throughout the ViMPlus RFSA area. However, households across all 
three FCS groups are less likely to eat roots and tubers, animal-based proteins, and fruits and 
vegetables. Although statistical analyses did not indicate an association between the percentage of 
harvest completed and household food consumption, it is possible that the timing of the survey, which 
overlapped with the start of the harvest period, may have inflated results for food consumption: 
households that did not harvest any crops at the time of the survey may have received food items from 
households that harvested their crops, and/or may have purchased food items from the market. There is 
some evidence that household food consumption increases with access to financial services 
(participation in group-based savings groups), livestock holdings (sheep), and the application of soil￾related fertility practices, and the adoption of post-harvest handling and storage practices.
Recommendations: Nutrition meetings and trainings could emphasize the importance of consuming 
diverse food groups and demonstrate ways to incorporate different food groups into daily meals. 
Agriculture-related trainings can focus on new types of fruits and vegetables to grow. However, limited 
financial resources, especially during the lean season, may constrain households’ ability to incorporate 
diverse food groups frequently, and households that grow more-nutritious foods may opt to sell them. 
Increasing the use of improved post-harvest storage can help households extend food provisioning for a 
few months during the lean period. Qualitative research and/or cost-of-diet studies could help identify 
locally available nutritious wild foods and/or cheaper foods for household consumption and identify 
effective behavior change communication messaging to promote those items.
Land Ownership
Female farmers are more likely to own land than male farmers, but this difference is marginal, and their 
plot size is generally smaller compared to male farmers. Recommendations: Further research is needed 
to understand the structural factors (i.e., cultural, religious, economic, ecological, and institutional) that 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Executive Summary ix
impede women’s access to land for cultivation, and to support initiatives that improve women’s land 
rights. 
Use of Financial Services
Half of all farmers, regardless of being male or female, used agriculture-related financial services in the 
ViMPlus RFSA area. Farmers are more likely to participate in saving schemes than to take out loans. 
Recommendations: Although utilization of financial services is relatively high, efforts to promote 
additional utilization of financial services to support adoption of improved livelihood practices should be 
continued. Adoption of practices that require substantial purchases of material inputs is relatively low. 
Agriculture-related meetings and trainings could focus on improving financial literacy and build on 
traditional community-based borrowing mechanisms to increase the use of financial services.
Use of Improved Storage Practices
Sealed/airtight bags are the most-used type of improved post-harvest storage practice, followed by 
triple bags for preserving grains. However, their use is relatively low. Recommendations: Extending 
access to credit can be one pathway for improving adoption of post-harvest handling and storage. A 
better understanding of post-harvest loss per crop, drivers of loss, and the role of the myriad factors 
that can reduce loss would be helpful for informing future initiatives. 
Use of Improved Crop Practices
The most common crop management practices are applying organic and phosphatic manure, zai pits, 
crop association, sowing after first useful rains, and NRM approaches such as delimiting animal corridors 
and pasture areas, FMNR, and protecting ponds from silting. A moderate percentage of farmers indicate 
using modern agricultural equipment. Practices that are unfamiliar or require resources to purchase 
inputs, such as using improved seed varieties and pest and disease management practices, are less 
pervasive. RISE I endline qualitative data suggest that access to agricultural inputs, including tools, is 
difficult in the project areas, which affects their ability to pilot new practices, sustain the beneficial 
practices, and stimulate demand for the inputs they find effective. Qualitative data from the RISE I 
endline study also indicates that training participants shared improved agricultural practices with others, 
and that sharing of new agricultural knowledge was aided by documentation provided during the 
trainings that could be shown and passed on to others. Recommendations: ViMPlus should continue 
agricultural credit and saving schemes and agricultural trainings with informational handouts to 
reinforce learning and promote further socialization.
Use of Improved Livestock Practices
With the exception of vaccinations, application of most targeted improved livestock practice is low. 
Although the current baseline findings do show that livestock vaccination rates are high, future 
programs might consider supporting systems-level expansion into these areas as well as training 
community members in veterinary services, keeping in mind that monetary costs of veterinary products 
and services may restrict their adoption and should be factored into system design. Recommendations: 
Future initiatives should consider the extent to which livestock farmers are able to access existing 
veterinary services (such as government programs) on a permanent basis and farmers’ ability to afford 
veterinary services and products. Further research should be undertaken to assess the extent of these 
potential barriers. 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
x Executive Summary
WASH
Access is low in the ViMPlus RFSA area to basic sanitation facilities, but households have more access to 
handwashing stations with water and soap/ash and improved drinking water sources that consistently 
meet the minimum daily needs. Nearly all households are knowledgeable about the importance of 
handwashing before eating. Recommendation: Sensitization should focus on other critical times that 
households are less aware of – namely, those relating to other food handling activities such as before 
cooking and food preparation and when engaging in activities posing a risk of fecal contact. It would also 
be good to assess the presence of animal feces in children's play spaces to develop interventions to 
separate animal feces from children's play areas. This can be done by penning animals, improving 
flooring, and/or promoting child playpens/mats.
Women’s Dietary Diversity
Two-thirds of women of reproductive age in the ViMPlus RFSA area achieve a diet of minimum diversity. 
Sensitization on the importance of eating a variety of food types, particularly those that are less widely 
consumed such as dairy products, meat, poultry, fish and vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables, could 
support VimPlus RFSA nutrition goals. Kitchen demonstrations in which women from the community 
show how to incorporate different food groups into daily meal preparation could also be useful. Results 
underscore that women consume more-diverse diets when they engage in income-earning activities, 
live in households that are more food secure, or participate in nutrition trainings/meetings, or if they 
live in households that raise goats and use improved livestock practices. Recommendations: Future 
projects should continue to promote savings and access to credit and other livelihood interventions that 
increase income, which in turn leads to improvements in women’s dietary diversity. 
Antenatal Care
More than two-third of births (most recent) that occurred in the five years prior to the survey received 
at least four ANC visits by a skilled health personnel. Behavior change communication efforts should 
continue to emphasize the importance of ANC, with a focus on how often to make ANC visits, when to 
make the visits (i.e., timing), and who is qualified to provide those services. In some cases, the lack of 
availability of ANC services or distance to a health center may be a barrier. Recommendations: 
Sensitization should target both mothers and fathers so that fathers can support women in going to 
their ANC visits and in other aspects of their pregnancy and delivery. 
Family Planning
Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods among women in a union is widespread in the RFSA 
implementation area; however, very few women use any form of family planning. Further exploration is 
needed to identify and address barriers to using family planning, including affordability of consultation 
services, cost of purchasing contraception, and underlying cultural or religious beliefs. Results from the 
baseline survey point to the role of husbands in contraceptive decision-making; about one half of 
women who use family planning made the decision alone. Recommendations: Sensitization efforts 
should target both women and men and underscore the significance of family planning for women’s 
well-being and the overall family (e.g., role of family planning and benefits of spacing births).
Children’s Dietary Diversity
Vitamin-A-rich fruits and vegetables and grains and tubers are widely consumed by children 6-23 
months, and half of the children in the ViMPlus RFSA area achieve a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-C). 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Executive Summary xi
Recommendations: Projects should continue to raise awareness among primary caregivers on the 
health benefits of complementary feeding, and the appropriate time to introduce complementary foods 
without cutting back on breastfeeding. Sensitization around complementary feeding could be rolled into 
ANC and perinatal care visits and through mothers’ groups, GASPAs (female-led nutrition support 
groups), and other community nutrition groups with demonstrations on how to integrate appropriate 
quantity and frequency of nutrient-rich foods into children’s meals. Sensitization for fathers through 
fathers’ groups could also enhance the sharing of household decision-making affecting children’s dietary 
diversity. 
Gender, Group Participation and Access to Credit
Men are more likely than women to engage in cash-earning activities while three-quarter of women and 
men belong to community groups. Participation in community-based savings and credit groups is low for 
both men and women. Recommendations: A better understanding of the barriers to credit for both men 
and women and access to cash-earning activities for women is needed. Women’s time constraints may 
limit their ability to engage in work and institutions that provide access to credit could be strengthened.
COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies (See Annex 8)
The majority of households in the RFSA implementation area are aware of COVID-19. Most households 
experienced impacts to their food security and livelihoods due to COVID-19. The types of impacts 
suggest that the ramifications of COVID-19 at the time of the survey are mostly due to restrictions and 
closures rather than health impacts. Recommendation: Continued monitoring is needed to ensure 
continued public health and food security as the pandemic continues.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Introduction 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of the Baseline Study 
In fiscal year 2018, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Office of Food for 
Peace (FFP) funded Victory Against Malnutrition Plus (ViMPlus), a five-year resilience food security 
activity (RFSA) in eight communes in the Centre Nord region of Burkina Faso. In 2020, the Office of Food 
for Peace merged with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) to form the Bureau for 
Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) to streamline USAID humanitarian responses. BHA provides life-saving 
humanitarian emergency and non-emergency aid—including food, water, shelter, sanitation and 
hygiene, and nutrition services—to the world’s most vulnerable and hardest-to-reach populations. The 
goal of the 2018 RFSA award is to address critical challenges in food security, nutrition, and poverty, and 
to improve the resilience of households and communities.
Under the Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning (IMPEL) activity to improve RFSA design and 
implementation, Technical Assistance to NGOs (TANGO) was contracted to conduct a baseline study in 
the RFSA implementation area (see Annex 1, Protocol). TANGO contracted a local firm, Bagna Solutions, 
to perform the data collection for the baseline survey. The baseline study includes a population-based 
household survey (PBS) and qualitative information from secondary sources. The primary purpose of the 
PBS is to provide baseline population-level estimates for a limited number of intermediate but critical 
outcome indicators and a limited number of additional indicators proposed by the USAID Mission and 
implementing partners (IPs). These indicators will serve as points of comparison for the interim 
performance evaluation and future endline PBS. The baseline study results will be used to refine 
program targeting and, where possible, inform program design by exploring relationships among 
variables based on the project theory of change. 
1.2 Background on BHA RFSA
ViMPlus, part of the Resilience in the Sahel-Enhanced (RISE) initiative, is implemented in the Centre 
Nord region of Burkina Faso by ACDI/VOCA in partnership with Save the Children and Tufts University. 
The goal of the RFSA is to address critical challenges in food security, nutrition, and poverty, and to 
improve the resilience of households and communities. Table 1 provides additional details on the 
geographic coverage of the RFSA.
Table 1: Geographic coverage BHA RFSA, Burkina Faso
Region Communes1 Number of 
villages
Number of 
Households
Number of 
individuals
Centre Nord Barsalogho Bouroum
Nagbingou Namissinguima
Pissila Rollo
Tougouri Yalgo
258 67,579 560,535
Source: Population and household estimates derived from baseline survey listing and roster data; village household counts 
provided by the IP. It was originally planned for ViMPlus to operate in 11 communes but due to insecurity, the RFSA is working in 
8.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
2 Introduction
The theory of change guiding implementation of ViMPlus layers and sequences activities at the 
individual, household, and community levels. In addition to activities focused on promoting enhanced 
production and consumption of diverse agricultural products, the RFSA includes interventions aimed to 
improve the health and nutrition of especially vulnerable populations, with a particular focus on 
adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and children under two years of age. In support of 
these outcomes, ViMPlus’ theory of change also includes targeted support for inclusive community-level 
institutions and governance structures to equitable manage natural resources and mitigate the risk of 
natural disasters. The cross-cutting purpose of social inclusion is intended to ensure that all VimPlus 
activities enable youth and women to create and sustain positive change in their households and 
communities through skills acquisition and adoption of equitable practices.
This report begins with an overview of the current food security situation in Burkina Faso. Section 2 
describes the methods used for the PBS and limitations of the study design. Section 3 presents the PBS 
findings, organized by sector. Where possible, the results of the quantitative analyses are integrated 
with qualitative data and information from secondary sources to gain additional context and 
understanding of prevailing conditions and perceptions of the populations in the RFSA implementation 
area. The report ends with conclusions and recommendations based on key findings.
1.3 Country Context 
1.3.1 Background
Burkina Faso has an estimated population of 20.9 million people (2020).
1 It is among the ten fastest￾urbanizing countries globally for the period 1990-2018;2 in 2019, 30 percent of the population was living 
in urban areas.3 Burkina Faso is considered a Least Developed Country by the United Nations General 
Assembly.4 The country has faced significant insecurity and humanitarian crisis, including internal 
displacement related to frequent terrorist attacks since 2016, especially in northern areas bordering 
Niger and Mali.5 The economy is currently led by the services sector, with declines in agricultural, 
mining, and construction. Economic growth was expected to fall slightly in 2020 due to the security and 
humanitarian situation and to be further impacted by the worsening of these crises, the COVID-19 
pandemic, climate events, and a possible decline in cotton prices in the case of a global recession.
Burkina Faso ranks low on the Human Development Index (HDI) at 182nd out of 189 countries, with an 
HDI score of 0.452 (2020).6 A substantial portion of the population (43.7 percent) lives below the income 
 1 United Nations Population Fund. 2020. State of the World Population 2020. Available at: https://www.unfpa.org/data/world￾population-dashboard 2 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2019. World Urbanization Prospects: The 
2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). New York: United Nations
3 United Nations Development Program. 2020. Human Development Report 2020. Indicator reported at: 
http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/101406
4 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2020. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2020. Statistical 
Annex. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2020_Annex.pdf 5 World Bank. 2021. Website accessed 25 March 2021: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/burkinafaso/overview
(Overview page, updated 4 May 2020) 6 United Nations Development Program. 2020. Human Development Report 2020. Available at: 
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/NER
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Introduction 3
poverty line of $1.90 per day.7 Burkina Faso’s Gini coefficient, which measures income and wealth 
inequality, is 35.3.8 Just 4.7 percent (2014 figure) of the rural population has access to electricity.9
Almost half the population (44.5 percent) is age 14 or younger.10 Primary school enrolment is 
widespread (80 percent males, 78 percent females; 2009-2019), but secondary school enrolment is 
much lower (30 percent males, 32 percent females; 2009-2019).11 Mean years of schooling is 1.6.
12 The 
literacy rate of adults age 15 and older is 14.2 percent (2008-2018). Mobile phone subscription per 100 
people is nearly universal at 97.9.
With a Gender Development Index (GDI) value of 0.867, Burkina Faso is in GDI Group 5, comprised of 
countries with low equality in HDI achievements between women and men.13 The Gender Inequality 
Index value for Burkina Faso is 0.594 (2019), ranking it 147th out of 162 countries.14
1.3.2 Overview of the Current Food Security Situation
The Burkinabé economy is highly dependent on agriculture: almost 80 percent of the working 
population works in agriculture.15 Nevertheless, the percentage of GDP derived from agriculture, 
forestry and fishing has been declining steadily, from 36.6 percent in 1998 to 20.2 percent in 2019.16
Major crops include sorghum, millet, maize (the most important crops for household consumption),17
and cowpea. Millet is the staple food of the most vulnerable households.18
The last FEWS NET Food Security Outlook available for Burkina Faso (July 2020) projected Stressed! (IPC 
Phase 2!) through September in Sanmatenga province, where ViMPlus operates, and in Loroum and
Soum provinces. 19 The IPC Phase would likely be worse without planned and ongoing humanitarian food 
assistance, which was expected to reach 20–30 percent of the population and meet at least 80 percent 
of caloric needs.
 7 United Nations Development Program. 2020. Human Development Report 2020. 
8 A Gini coefficient of one (or 100 percent) represents maximal inequality of income/wealth. United Nations Development 
Program. 2020. Human Development Report 2020.
9 United Nations Development Program. 2020. Human Development Report 2020.
10 United Nations Population Fund. 2020. State of the World Population 2020. Available at: https://www.unfpa.org/data/world￾population-dashboard. 11 United Nations Population Fund. 2020. State of the World Population 2020. 
12 United Nations Development Program. 2020. Human Development Report 2020. Indicator reported at: 
http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/101406. 13 Absolute deviation from gender parity of more than 10 percent. United Nations Development Program. 2020. Human 
Development Report 2020.
14 United Nations Development Program. 2020. Human Development Report 2020.
15 World Bank. 2021. Website accessed 18 March 2021: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/burkinafaso/overview 16 World Bank. 2021. Website accessed 25 March 2021: 
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS?end=2019&locations=BF&start=1960&view=chart 17 FEWS NET. 2021. Price Bulletin. February 2021. Available at: 
https://fews.net/sites/default/files/documents/reports/Burkina_Faso_2021_02_PB_EN.pdf 18 Phase 3! in the provinces of Bam, Namentenga, Séno, Oudalan, Yagha, Gnagna and Komondjari. FEWS NET. 2021. Price 
Bulletin. February 2021. Available at: 
https://fews.net/sites/default/files/documents/reports/Burkina_Faso_2021_02_PB_EN.pdf
19 FEWS NET. 2020. West Africa Food Security Outlook. July 2020. Available at: https://fews.net/west-africa/food-security￾outlook/july-2020
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
4 Introduction
While rainfall projections for the end of 2020 were favorable, the worsening security situation was 
expected to disrupt agricultural activities. Figure 1 illustrates the agricultural calendar for Burkina Faso in 
a typical year. The July 2020 outlook stated, “In the provinces on and around the northern and eastern 
borders, agricultural production may remain below average because of displacement and the fact that 
households will have limited access to their fields. In the western and southern production zones, where 
the situation is calmer, lower prices could dissuade producers from increasing their planting areas. 
Production in these zones is expected to be roughly in line with the five-year average. The main factors 
that may affect the food security outlook are civil insecurity and possible desert locust invasions.”20
Phase 3 was expected in certain provinces until January 2021. 
FAO’s Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS) estimated in March 2021 that 
approximately 2.7 million people will need humanitarian assistance between June and August 2021, and 
that “In Centre-Nord and Sahel regions, insecurity continues to cause population displacements, further 
deteriorating the food security situation. Due to the conflict, about 1.07 million people have been 
displaced, of which 50 percent live in Centre Nord Region. In addition, about 20,250 [sic] refugees, 
mostly from Mali, are still residing in Sahel Region.”21 As reported by the World Food Programme (WFP) 
in September 2020, according to the most recent Cadre Harmonisé (Harmonized Framework), since the 
previous assessment in March 2010, acute food insecurity in Burkina Faso had increased by over 50
percent, exacerbated by the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, with subsistence farmers and 
livestock herders at heightened risk.22
Figure 1: Seasonal Calendar for a Typical Year, Burkina Faso
Source: FEWS NET
 20 FEWS NET. 2020. West Africa Food Security Outlook. July 2020. 
21 FAO. 2021. Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS) report on countries requiring external assistance for food. 
March. Available at: http://www.fao.org/giews/country-analysis/external-assistance/en/ 22 WFP. 2020. News release: “More than 3 million people facing acute food insecurity as Burkina Faso grapples with COVID-19 
and conflict.” 21 August 2020. Available at: https://www.wfp.org/news/more-3-million-people-facing-acute-food-insecurity￾burkina-faso-grapples-covid-19-and-conflict
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Methodology and Limitations 5
2. METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS
2.1 Study Design
The baseline study is based on a pre-post (cross-sectional) design to allow for the detection of 
statistically significant change in key indicators between the baseline survey and interim performance 
evaluation, and between the baseline and endline surveys. 
2.2 Sample Design
The baseline survey sampling is designed to adequately power a statistical test of differences between the 
baseline and endline estimates for key performance indicators in the RFSA.The indicators used for the 
sample size calculations were selected with BHA and include the proportion of respondents that have 
adopted: i) improved water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) practices, ii) improved agricultural storage 
practices and financial services, and iii) recommended maternal and child health and nutrition (MCHN) 
practices. The following parameter values were applied in the calculations: i) design effect of 5 for WASH 
and agricultural practices indicators and design effect of 2 for MCHN indicators, ii) 95 percent confidence 
level for one-tailed test, iii) 80 percent power for one-tailed test, (iv) expected change of 15 percentage 
points over the life of the project, and v) a non-response factor of 25 percent to account for estimated 
household non-response rate. The highest required sample size was selected based on these calculations. 
Additional details on the sampling methodology, including the indicators and parameters for determining 
the sample size are found on pages 7-9 in the study protocol (see Annex 1). 
A stratified multi-stage clustered sample design was used with three stages of sampling: i) selection of 
villages (25 villages), ii) selection of households (31 households per village), and iii) selection of 
individuals.23 A total of 25 villages were sampled, with 31 households sampled in each village, resulting 
in a sample size of 775 households.
2.3 Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire used for the baseline survey is derived from the core BHA PBS questionnaire. The 
survey was streamlined for a non-permissive environment (NPE). USAID describes an NPE as a context, 
at the national or sub-national level, in which uncertainty, instability, inaccessibility or insecurity 
constrain USAID's ability to operate safely and effectively. The streamlined survey uses fewer but critical 
lower-level indicators.24 At the time of the study design, estimates of impact-level indicators pertaining 
to poverty and children and women’s anthropometry were expected to be derived from the RISE II 
baseline survey, then scheduled for May/June 2020, a few months after the BHA RFSA baseline survey 
(March/April). 25 Although there are methodological limitations to combining results from different 
 23 Annex 1 describes the criteria for defining “household” and household member selection procedures. 24 The survey tool did not collect anthropometric measurements for children or women, or consumption expenditures data for 
households.
25 This schedule was later changed; see study limitations in Sec. 2.6.1.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
6 Methodology and Limitations
surveys,26 this approach is considered acceptable given the geographic overlap of the target populations 
and the temporal overlap originally expected in the timing of the two surveys.
All questionnaire modules follow FFP and Feed the Future (FtF) guidelines, as described in the FFP 
Indicators Handbook (May 2020)27 and questionnaire template.28 The baseline survey questionnaire 
includes modules on the following topics:
• Module A: Household Identification and Informed Consent 
• Module B: Household Roster
• Module C: Food Consumption Score 
• Module D: Child Feeding Practices and Diarrhea
• Module E: Women’s Dietary Diversity, Antenatal Care (ANC), Contraceptive Prevalence
Rate, and Family Planning 
• Module F: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 
• Module G: Agriculture (crop, livestock, natural resource management [NRM],
storage, financial services) 
• Module J: Gender and Cash
• Module KF: Access to Credit and Group Membership (youngest woman in a union)
• Module KM: Access to Credit and Group Membership (partner of youngest woman
in a union)
• Module P: Activity Participation
• Module Q: COVID-19 Awareness, Impacts, and Coping Strategies
• Module R: Social Capital
• Module 7.51: Agricultural Production – Goats
• Module 7.52: Agricultural Production – Sheep
• Module 7.90 Plot/Land Map
• Module 7.91 Plot Area 
• Module 7.92 Crop Yield
Questions and response options were adapted to the country context, such as those that involve food in 
Modules C, D and E, and the types of containers and sanitation facilities listed in Module F. The survey 
was also contextualized to capture information on different improved agricultural practices promoted in 
the RFSA area. A COVID-19 module was added to collect information on knowledge and adoption of 
COVID-19 mitigation practices, the impacts of COVID-19 on households’ livelihoods and food security, 
and coping strategies to manage those impacts. Another module was included to collect information on 
households’ participation in RFSA activities, given that RFSA interventions started before the 
 26 There are limitations to the approach of combining outcome-level indicators from one source with impact-level indicators 
from another survey that relate to differences in study design and timing of data collection. The RISE II baseline survey will not 
be powered to provide estimates at the RFSA level, an approach approved by BHA. This contrasts with the BHA baseline survey, 
which is powered to provide RFSA-level estimates. Differences in the timing of the surveys may impact some indicators that are 
sensitive to seasonality.
27 The FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1 May 2020 revision is available at: https://www.usaid.gov/food￾assistance/documents/ffp-indicators-handbook-part-i-indicators-baseline-and-endline-surveys-dfsa 28 The FFP core questionnaire template is available at: https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/documents/ffp-indicators￾handbook-questionnaire-template.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Methodology and Limitations 7
implementation of the baseline survey.
29 These participation results are not indicative of full 
participation levels in the interventions as the RFSA moves forward.
Table 2 illustrates the indicators measured and the level of disaggregation as prescribed in the FFP 
Handbook supplement on indicator tabulations.30
Table 2: Indicators measured in the baseline NPE survey
Indicator Disaggregation Level
FOOD SECURITY 
Percentage of households with poor, borderline and adequate Food 
Consumption Score (FCS)
Mean FCS
Gendered household type1
WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE
Percentage of households using basic drinking water services Gendered household type
Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service Gendered household type
Percentage of households with soap and water at a hand-washing 
station on premises
Gendered household type
AGRICULTURE
Percentage of farmers who used financial services (savings, 
agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months
Sex
Proportion of producers who have applied targeted improved 
management practices or technologies2
Commodity
Sex
Age (15-29, 30+)
Management practice or technology 
type
Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within target areas3 Crops: commodity, farm size, sex, age 
(15-29, 30+)
Livestock: commodity, production 
system, sex, age
WOMEN’S HEALTH AND NUTRITION
Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of 
minimum diversity (MDD-W)
Age: <19, 19+ years
Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits 
during pregnancy
None
Contraceptive prevalence rate Traditional, modern
Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family 
planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 
Age: 15-19, 20-29 and 30-49
 29 The breakout of intervention data by those households indicating they participated in VimPlus and those that did not is given 
in Annex 3, Table A6.3.
30 Available at https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/documents/ffp-indicators-handbook-supplement-part-1
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
8 Methodology and Limitations
Indicator Disaggregation Level
Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family 
planning methods in the past 12 months
Decision-making: alone, jointly, spouse
Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49
CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION
Prevalence of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum 
diversity (MDD-C)
Sex
Percent of children under age five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in 
the prior two weeks
Sex
Percentage of children under age five (0-59 months) with diarrhea 
treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT)
Sex
GENDER - CASH
Percent of women/men in union who earned cash in the past 12 
months 
Sex 
Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50; 
male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50
Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation 
in decisions about the use of self-earned cash4
Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50
Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation 
in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash4
Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50
Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner 
participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash4
Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50
GENDER CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION
Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Sex
Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50; 
male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50
Percent of women/men in union with access to credit Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30-49; male 
15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50
Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Decision actors: alone, jointly
Sex
Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50; 
male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50
RESILIENCE-RELATED
Proportion of households that believe local government will respond 
effectively to future shocks and stresses
Gendered household type
Index of social capital at the household level Social capital components: overall 
index, bonding sub-index, bridging sub￾index
Gendered household type
Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro￾finance or lending programs 
Financing type 
Gendered household type
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Methodology and Limitations 9
Notes: 
1 Following FFP indicator descriptions, Feed the Future defines four gendered household types: households with i) female and 
male adults, ii) adult female, no adult male, ii) adult male, no adult female, and iv) child, no adults. USAID, 2020. Food for Peace 
Indicators Handbook. Part I: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. May.
2 This applies to crops and livestock of interest. For Burkina Faso, the crops of interest are sorghum, cowpeas, rice and onions. 
The livestock of interest are goats, sheep, and poultry.
3 The survey collected information on agricultural yield; however, due to measurement challenges, particularly in relation to size 
of farmland and weight of livestock, no further analysis of the yield data was performed. Therefore, indicator estimates for 
agricultural yield are omitted from the report and Annex 5.
4 The ODK skip logic was not programmed to allow for the calculation of the gender and cash indicators because the following 
groups were excluded: i) respondents who worked for a combination of cash and in-kind whereas all cash earners (i.e., 
respondents who worked for cash OR cash and in-kind); and ii) respondents who reported not discussing their earnings with 
anyone (information on self-earned cash decision-making should have been asked to all eligible respondents regardless of 
whether they discuss their earnings. 
2.4 Field Procedures
2.4.1 Timing of the Survey
Data collection for the baseline study was scheduled to commence in early 2020 (March-April) and end 
by April 23, 2020, before the start of Ramadan. However, due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
fieldwork for the baseline survey was suspended until local regulations and conditions (e.g., local 
transmission of virus, travel restrictions, willingness of households to be interviewed in-person) 
indicated that face-to-face interviewing could safely resume with COVID-19 mitigation procedures in 
place. Based on the revised schedule, the survey was conducted in September 2020 and ended at the 
start of the harvest period in October 2020.
In advance of fieldwork, TANGO, in partnership with Bagna, updated its fieldwork protocol to include 
COVID-19 safety measures to mitigate the risk of virus transmission and safeguard the well-being of 
staff, households, and communities.31 See Annex 1 for additional details.
2.4.2 Listing Exercise
The listing training and exercise took place between August 24 and September 15, 2020. Bagna 
conducted the listing training, mapping of selected villages, and household listing. Listers were trained 
on how to locate a cluster (village), prepare sketch maps of the cluster, list households, and segment 
large clusters. The household listing operation was conducted by 10 listers across 25 clusters with 
oversight by one supervisor. During the listing exercise, GPS coordinates for each village were taken by 
using a commonly accepted central point in the village. GPS coordinates were also taken for each listed 
 31 The underlying principle guiding the adaptations to the baseline survey data collection procedures is Do No Harm. Per the 
USAID/FFP and USAID/OFDA Interim Guidance for Applicants Engaging in COVID-19 Humanitarian Response: in all 
programming, the safety and security of community members and implementing partner staff are critical; and where remote 
monitoring is not feasible, update data collection tools and protocols to limit proximity, frequency, and duration of face-to-face 
contact.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
10 Methodology and Limitations
household to facilitate locating sampled households during survey data collection. The results of the 
listing exercise were used for the second-stage sampling of households.
2.4.3 Training 
Due to the COVID pandemic and security risks, trainings were held in Kaya to minimize travel and avoid 
large gatherings. Training curricula were mainstreamed with COVID-19 mitigation and safety protocols 
(see Annex 1, Protocol for details).32
2.4.3.1 Training of Trainers
TANGO led a virtual training of trainers (ToT) for Bagna field supervisors, local independent survey 
monitors, and team leads. The ToT was conducted via Zoom from August 31 to September 6. TANGO 
trained a total of one field supervisor, five team leads, and four local survey monitors. The ToT focused 
on roles and responsibilities, organization and supervision of fieldwork, data quality assurance, and 
performance monitoring. Sessions also involved a question-by-question review of the instrument. To 
capitalize on the time zone differences, the training schedule was adapted to begin in the afternoon in 
local Burkina Faso time so that the mornings could be used for to review manuals, conduct mock 
interviews, and role play to ensure that all participants were well versed in the instrument and in 
navigating the electronic survey. 
2.4.3.2 Main Training
The enumerator training was conducted from September 13 to September 18. A total of 30 enumerators 
were trained.33 Bagna field supervisors and the independent survey monitors, previously trained by 
TANGO during the ToT, conducted the main training with remote support from TANGO.34 Local 
independent survey monitors, previously trained during the ToT, participated in the main training, 
observed the mock interviews, and provided feedback. Training topics included data gathering, sampling 
strategy, human subjects research, a review of the survey questionnaire, how to gather data using 
mobile devices, data checks for quality control, creating backup copies of data, and data archiving and 
transfer. The training included a combination of plenary sessions for question-by-question guidance and 
break-out groups to practice and role-play using the tablets. The break-out groups were followed by a 
plenary session to discuss issues experienced and how to handle them. An events calendar for Burkina 
Faso was developed as a reference to help enumerators estimate the age of respondents when the age 
could not be ascertained. Photographs of sanitation facilities and water containers were provided to 
improve accuracy in recoding responses. Local IP staff participated in the training and provided technical 
presentations about the RFSA.
 32 In addition to the standard training on the instrument and tablets, participants were trained on Do No Harm principles and 
COVID-sensitive data collection protocols. Trainings included a background on how COVID-19 is transmitted and methods to 
prevent its spread.
33 Bagna recruited and trained 25 enumerators plus an additional 20 percent to serve as replacements if needed and to reduce 
the number of days in the field to mitigate COVID-19-related risks. This resulted with a total of 30 enumerators trained. 34 TANGO and the trainers were connected on a WhatsApp group and communicated daily and as needed when issues arose 
during the training. In addition, TANGO staff connected via ZOOM and participated in the daily de-brief plenary sessions where 
issues were discussed among trainers and participants.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Methodology and Limitations 11
2.4.4 Pilot
At the end of the enumerator training, a one-day pilot test was conducted on September 19 in Kaya. 
Each enumerator completed two full interviews during the pilot test. Each interview took approximately 
two hours, depending on the size of the household. Team leads and the field supervisor observed 
enumerators and took notes on their performance. On September 20, the Bagna survey manager, field 
supervisors, and team leads debriefed their teams to discuss challenges and issues experienced during 
the pilot. The debrief sessions were attended virtually by TANGO staff. 
2.4.5 Fieldwork
Fieldwork commenced on September 29, nearly a week after the pilot. During this period, TANGO 
revised the Open Data Kit (ODK) program based on the results of the pilot, and data collection teams 
were provided with a refresher training before travelling to their respective first clusters. A total of five 
teams collected data. Each team was comprised of one team lead and five enumerators. In addition, 
Bagna’s field team included one survey manager, one coordinator, three field supervisors, and two IT 
specialists for a total of 31 field staff. One local survey monitor, independent of Bagna and hired directly 
by TANGO, accompanied the teams for the entire duration of data collection to provide quality control 
and oversight of fieldwork.35 Data were collected using tablets programmed with ODK, an open-source 
data capture program. Data from completed interviews were uploaded daily to a TANGO cloud server 
via secure transmission.36 TANGO convened daily de-briefs with the Bagna survey manager and the local 
survey monitors to discuss and resolve issues (e.g., issues with the instrument, data collection 
program/tablet, survey protocols) as they emerged. 
2.5 Data Analysis
2.5.1 Sampling Weights
Separate sampling weights were calculated for indicators and adjusted to compensate for household 
and individual non-response. Sampling weights were calculated for each of the following distinct groups 
by taking the inverse of the probabilities of selection from each stage of sampling:
• Households (Modules C, F, P, Q, R)
• Children under five (Module D)
• Women 15-49 (Module E)
• Female cash earners in a union (Module J)
• Male cash earners in a union (Module J)
• Youngest female in household (Module KF)
• Spouse of youngest female in household (Module KM)
• All farmers (Module G)
Refer to Annex 4 for details on the calculation of sampling weights. Table 3 (next page) presents
response rates by sampling group. 
 35 Annex 3 provides a list of the study personnel.
36 The data were managed and maintained on a secure TANGO server.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
12 Methodology and Limitations
Table 3: Response rates by sampling group, Burkina Faso 2020 RFSA Baseline Survey
2.5.2 Indicator Definitions and Tabulations
Indicators were calculated and tabulated based on FFP and FtF guidance as described in the FFP Indicators 
Handbook Part 1 and the Supplement to Part 1. Annex 4 describes data processing routines, including the 
handling of missing data, and the full suite of analyses conducted for the baseline study. Results are 
weighted to represent the full target population in the RFSA area.37 Point estimates with 95 percent 
confidence intervals and variance estimations were derived for all indicators using Taylor series expansion 
and considering the design effect associated with the complex sampling design. Annex 5 provides a tabular 
summary of the indicator estimates and sampling statistics. Annex 6 presents the results of additional 
descriptive analyses. Results of the bivariate and multivariate analyses are included in Annex 7. 
2.6 Study Limitations and Issues Encountered
2.6.1 Study Limitations
Timing of the Survey: Data collection was originally planned to take place in March/April 2020 but due 
to COVID-19 restrictions was re-scheduled to September, ahead of the main harvest season in October, 
to avoid an upward bias in food security estimates in the RFSA area.38 The timeline for pre-fieldwork 
 37 Because the estimates are based on a sample of the target population rather than the full target population (i.e., a census), 
sampling weights are applied to correct for unequal selection probabilities, coverage issues and non-response. If sampling 
weights are not applied to survey data, the results can be biased. 38 The timing of data collection can exert an upward bias on food consumption scores (i.e., overstate the extent to which 
households are food secure) if data collection spills further into the harvest period when households are likely to have better 
access to diverse and nutritious food.
Sampling group Number 
eligible
Number 
interviewed
Response rate 
(%)
Households (Modules, C, F, P, Q, R) 770 750 97.4
Children under five (Module D) 1,675 1,406 86.5
Women 15-49 (Module E) 1,636 1,529 93.5
Female cash earners married or in a union (Module J) 296 244 82.4
Male cash earners married or in a union (Module J) 463 398 87.0
Youngest female in a union (Module KF) 725 711 98.0
Spouse of youngest female in a union (Module KM) 691 638 92.3
All Farmers (Module G) 1,374 1,077 78.4
Goat herders (Module 7.51) 465 465 100
Sheep herders (Module 7.52) 545 545 100
Notes: The response rate is calculated by dividing the number interviewed by the number eligible and multiplying the result by 
100. The number eligible is derived from the responses to the household roster.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Methodology and Limitations 13
activities and data collection was thus condensed from its original schedule (i.e., the timeline 
established prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) and correspondingly, the number of enumerators was 
increased from four to five per team to complete data collection before the start of the harvest. Despite 
efforts to avoid spillover into the harvest period, data collection ended on October 10. Delays occurred 
due to several issues that were encountered in the field that are described below. To assess the possible 
effects of the timing of data collection on food security estimates, households were asked whether they 
cultivated any crops at any time directly before or during data collection that would affect their 
consumption of the food items covered in the survey. Additionally, because RFSA interventions began 
before the survey could be conducted, the estimates may not necessarily reflect a true baseline. 
Therefore, the study collected information on direct participation in RFSA interventions to assess 
differences in baseline estimates between direct and indirect participants.
Limitations of Combining Data Sources: The original plan to derive impact-level indicators pertaining to 
poverty and children and women’s anthropometry from the RISE II baseline survey was complicated by 
the delay of RISE II baseline data collection to August/September 2021. The timing of the RISE II baseline 
study coincides with about the same timeframe as the current study, avoiding any differences in 
seasonality, so the impact-level indicators will be separated in time by approximately 12 months from 
the indicators presented in this study. Conditions such as prices, markets, as well as the COVID-19 
pandemic, to name a few factors, could differ and should be taken into consideration in the 
interpretation of results. 
Validity and Reliability of Self-reported Data: Most of the data collected for the household survey are 
self-reported. Limitations of self-reported data include the potential for exaggeration or omission of 
information, inaccurate recall, reporting of untruthful information, reduced validity if respondents do 
not fully understand a question, and the potential for respondents to give responses they perceive as 
desirable, expected, or acceptable.39 Enumerators were trained in techniques to help mitigate these 
types of measurement bias. 
The reliability of self-reported data is particularly challenging for questions related to agricultural yield. 
The baseline survey relied on self-reported data rather than direct measurement to collect information 
on cultivated plot area, amount of crop harvested per plot, and weight of livestock. 40 While direct (i.e., 
physical) measurement by experts can generate more accurate estimates of agricultural yield, this 
approach is more expensive and time-consuming.41 Farmer estimates (i.e., self-reported information) 
 39 In addition, while the informed consent protocol reiterates the privacy and anonymity of responses and enumerators are 
trained to conduct interviews in a quiet and private place, this is often difficult to achieve, therefore we cannot rule out the 
influence of the presence of other household members on the responses. 40 Several factors can influence the quality of estimates of agricultural yield, including but not limited to method of data 
collection (i.e., direct measurement versus farmer estimates), inter-cropping, continuous harvesting, and use of non-standard 
units. For a more comprehensive review of issues related to the measurement of agricultural indicators refer to the 2013 Feed 
the Future Agricultural Indicators Guide: Guidance on the collection and use of data for selected Feed the Future Agricultural 
Indicators by Suzanne Nelson and Anne Swindale available at
https://www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/FTF_Agriculture_Guide_Jan2014.pdf. 41 Diskin, Patrick. 1997. Agricultural Productivity Indicators Measurement Guide. Washington, D.C.: Food and Nutrition Technical 
Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development. Available at: 
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/842682301AA98504C1256F070044D507-
USAID_Agricultural_indicators_December_1997.pdf.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
14 Methodology and Limitations
are a simpler, less costly, and more efficient method of data collection but can introduce measurement 
error due to recall bias (for longer recall periods or if data collection does not occur soon after harvest), 
lack of knowledge, and perceived incentives for under- or over-reporting production estimates.42
Accurate measures of both area and production are ideal, but accurate measurement of area is more 
crucial for reducing errors in the calculation of agricultural yield.43 Preliminary analysis of yield-related 
data collected from the baseline survey indicated outliers in plot size and weight of livestock data. This is 
unsurprising given that farmers in the RFSA area may lack the knowledge or equipment needed to 
measure the size of their plots, and in the case of livestock production, very few farmers weigh their 
cattle (see Section 3.4.5). This issue was discussed prior to the start of fieldwork, and several steps were 
taken to minimize the effect of errors associated with self-reported estimates. The survey was fitted to 
collect information in non-standard units, and conversion factors for non-standard units were 
compiled.44 Plausible ranges for the weight of female and male adult and young goats and sheep were 
obtained from the IPs and used to validate survey responses. Several post-data collection processing 
routines were performed to identify and address outliers,45 but considering the measurement 
challenges described above, no further analysis of the yield data was performed. 
Non-response: Respondents may be reluctant to participate in the survey due to general mistrust that 
may arise in politically volatile situations and fears of falling ill in the baseline context of the COVID-19
pandemic. It is also possible that households may relocate or move due to the political situation. The 
study employed various measures to account for potential non-response, emphasize the anonymous 
and voluntary nature of study participation, and implement COVID-19 safety measures. As a 
methodological measure, the study design uses a higher-than-usual non-response factor of 25 percent. 
In terms of implementing the survey, field teams were trained to explain to respondents the objectives 
of the study and measures taken to preserve the anonymity of their responses. TANGO also updated the 
interview consent statement to include potential exposure to COVID-19 risks: enumerators were trained 
and required to explain to each eligible household the risks associated with participating in a face-to￾face interview in the context of the pandemic. 
2.6.2 Issues Encountered During Fieldwork
Poor network connectivity: Poor and intermittent network connectivity resulted in the need to extend 
the training period to schedule make-up training sessions. 
Impassable roads due to seasonal rains: Deployment of data collection teams to the field was slowed 
down by heavy rains that made roads impassable. 
Compact schedule: To complete data collection at the start of the harvest period and to reduce the 
duration of data collection in the communities, the timeline for the pre-fieldwork activities and data 
collection was condensed. TANGO modified the training agenda as needed to keep with the schedule. 
 42 Nelson and Swindale 2013 and Diskin 1997. 
43 Nelson and Swindale 2013. 
44 Conversion factors for non-standard units were obtained based on the 2018 Enquête Harmonisée sur les Conditions de Vie 
des Ménages (EHCVM). 45 Two approaches were used to adjust producer-level yield to mitigate the effects of extreme values (outliers): trimming the 
top five percent (i.e., exclusion of outliers from analysis) and winsorizing (retaining observations but capping numeric outliers 
so that they fall at the edge of the distribution using the 95th percentile). Thresholds for capping were determined for each 
RFSA area separately. 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Methodology and Limitations 15
TANGO coordinated closely with its independent survey monitors and the local firm supervisors to 
ensure that fieldwork was progressing as planned.
2.7 Qualitative Data 
In accordance with the baseline study protocol (see Annex 1), the baseline study did not collect primary 
qualitative data; qualitative data will be collected for the interim performance evaluation. To 
contextualize and help interpret the PBS baseline quantitative findings, the baseline study incorporates 
qualitative data available in relevant recent studies conducted in Burkina Faso, primarily the qualitative 
data TANGO collected for the USAID RISE I impact evaluation endline in the same time period as this 
baseline. Because the endline data were collected from a larger geographic coverage area than that of 
ViMPlus, we have referred only to the information from the six endline focus groups in Centre Nord, the 
region where ViMPlus operates. Use of existing data reinforces the focus by USAID on the use and 
dissemination of data and lessons learned across countries and within the IDEAL-supported food 
security and nutrition community of practice of IPs. The baseline study report also draws contextual 
information from external sources that are publicly available, e.g., FEWS NET, World Bank, and United 
Nations agencies. The final baseline report was additionally informed by review of the draft report by 
BHA staff and IPs and by input provided in a baseline results presentation that TANGO conducted with 
technical and M&E staff from each of the IPs. These exercises seek to provide further triangulation of 
findings, discuss and try to explain unexpected quantitative results, and validate the relevance, utility,
and feasibility of baseline recommendations.
16 Findings
3. FINDINGS
This section presents the baseline survey findings by topic, integrating information from secondary 
qualitative data sources where possible. Results are provided for the RFSA area. Findings are considered 
statistically significant at the level of p<0.05. Annex 4 summarizes the full set of analyses performed as 
part of the baseline study, including the methodology for the bivariate and multivariate analyses. Annex 
5 provides a tabular summary of indicator estimates and sampling statistics. The results of the 
descriptive analyses are presented in Annex 6, and the results of the bivariate and multivariate analyses 
are presented in Annex 7. Annex 8 presents the results of the COVID-19 module. 
3.1 Characteristics of the Study Population
In 2020, the estimated population of Burkina Faso was 20.9 million.
46 The population in the RFSA area 
(project participants and non-participants) is estimated at 1.14 million, approximately 5.5 percent of the 
country’s total population. Population and household estimates were derived from the baseline survey 
listing and roster data, and village household counts were provided by the IPs.
Figure 2 (next page) illustrates the share of key demographic groups from the overall population in the 
RFSA area. See Annex 6, Table A6.1 for additional details on estimated population counts in the RFSA 
area by key subgroups.
 46 United Nations Population Fund. 2020. State of the World Population 2020. Available at: https://www.unfpa.org/data/world￾population-dashboard. 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 17
Figure 2: Share of Key Demographic Groups from the Overall Population
There are an estimated 116,236 households in the RFSA area. Household size and composition may have 
implications for women and children’s health and nutrition and for overall food security of the 
household because these factors influence access to income-generating opportunities and other 
resources, the division of labor, and the distribution of resources among household members. Larger 
households may have fewer resources depending on the ratio of working-age adults to dependents. 
Table 4 provides details on the characteristics of households in the RFSA area. The average household 
has about 9.8 members, substantially higher than the national average household size of 5.7 in the last 
Demographic and Health Survey (2010). The RFSA survey found that 4.9 household members are adults 
15 years or older. Most households are comprised of both adult males and females (94.8 percent). 
Adult-female-only households, defined as households with at least one adult female and no adult males, 
account for 4 percent of all households. Adult-male-only households constitute a relatively smaller 
percentage of the overall household population (1.2 percent). Most households have at least one child 
under the age of five (81.6 percent). Just under half of households (42.9 percent) have at least one child 
6-23 months of age.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
18 Findings
Table 4: Household Characteristics
ViMPlus
Gendered household type (Number of households)1 116,236
 Male and female adults 108,069
 Female adult(s) only 6,318
 Male adult(s) only 1,849
 Child(ren) only (no adults) ^
Gendered household type (Percentage of households) 100.0
 Male and female adults 93.0
 Female adult(s) only 5.4
 Male adult(s) only 1.6
 Child(ren) only (no adults) ^
Average household size (Number of persons) 9.8
Average number of adults 15 years of age or older per household 4.9
Percentage of households with children under 5 years of age 81.6
Percentage of households with a child 6-23 months of age 42.9
Household headship (Percentage female) 13.7
Number of responding households 750
 Male and female adults 711 (84.8%)
 Female adult(s) only 30 (4.6%)
 Male adult(s) only 9 (1.2%)
 Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 (0%)
Source: BHA 2020 Burkina Faso baseline survey weighted population estimates. Based on household counts from the baseline 
listing operation which defined villages based on the natural boundaries of the "main village."
Notes: As stipulated in USAID’s Feed the Future guidelines, adults for gendered household type are defined as individuals 18 
years of age or older. For the interviews and all other analyses, the age for adults is 15 or older. Following FFP indicator 
descriptions, FTF defines four gendered household types: households with i) female and male adults, ii) adult female, no adult 
male, ii) adult male, no adult female, and iv) child, no adults. USAID, 2020. Food for Peace Indicators Handbook. Part I: 
Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. May.
^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30.
3.2 Activity Participation
The baseline survey collected information on households’ participation in RFSA activities, given that 
implementation of RFSA interventions commenced before the baseline survey began. The estimates are 
based on self-reported information; households are considered direct participants of the RFSA if 
someone in the household participated in any RFSA intervention(s). Households in which no member 
participated in any RFSA intervention are considered indirect participants. A total of 47 percent of 
surveyed households were direct participants (see Annex 6, Table A6.3). Figure 3 illustrates the 
percentage of direct and indirect participant households that received social assistance (from any 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 19
source) in the RFSA area by type of assistance received. Significance tests indicated that direct RFSA 
participants were more likely than indirect RFSA participants to participate in agriculture, nutrition, and 
WASH trainings and meetings. Activities provided by other organizations could explain the lack of 
difference in food rations between direct and indirect RFSA participants.47
Figure 3: Household Receipt of Social Assistance (From Any Source) Among Direct and Indirect RFSA 
Participants
Notes: Households were asked, "Have you or someone in your household participated in ViMPlus?" Households that responded 
“Yes” are considered direct participants of the RFSA, and households that responded “No” are considered indirect RFSA 
participants because although no household member participated directly in any of the RFSA interventions, the household falls 
in the RFSA intervention area.
3.3 Household Food Security
The US Government Global Food Security Strategy FY 2017-2021 defines food security as “access to––
and availability, utilization, and stability of––sufficient food to meet caloric and nutritional needs for an 
active and healthy life.”48 The main measure of food security used in this survey is the food consumption 
score (FCS). The FCS is a proxy indicator for food intake and is calculated considering dietary diversity, 
food frequency, and the relative nutritional value of nine different food groups consumed by the 
household in the seven days prior to the survey.
49 Based on weighted scores and using WFP thresholds, 
 47 VimPlus does not provide food rations.
48 Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/USG-Global-Food-Security-Strategy-2016.pdf. 49 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/documents/ffp-indicators￾handbook-part-i-indicators-baseline-and-endline-surveys-dfsa. 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
20 Findings
households are categorized into three groups: poor, borderline, or acceptable food consumption.50
Although the FCS can give an idea of the caloric sufficiency of diet, it does not account for any 
micronutrient deficiencies.51 Figure 4 illustrates the mean (average) FCS and percentage of households 
with poor, borderline, and acceptable FCS. The baseline results suggest that most households achieve 
acceptable FCS (83.3 percent). The average FCS exceeds 35 (the threshold for acceptable food 
consumption). The distribution of households by FCS groups and mean FCS does not vary across 
gendered household types. Refer to Annex 5 for estimates of mean FCS and the percentage of 
households with poor, borderline, and acceptable FCS by gendered household type.
Figure 4: Mean FCS and Distribution of Households by FCS 
Group
Figure 5 (next page) illustrates the frequency of consumption of food groups in the RFSA area. 
Households consume pulses an average of four days per week. Staples are consumed three days per 
week. Intake of dairy and animal-based proteins, such as beef, lamb, fish, and eggs, is infrequent. Intake 
of fruits and vegetables is also rare. While condiments, sugar, and oil have relatively less nutritional 
value, they are frequently consumed by households (approximately one to three days per week). For 
additional details on the components of the FCS score (i.e., percentage of households consuming each 
food group and frequency of consumption by FCS group), refer to Annex 6, Table A6.4. 
 50 Households are categorized into consumption groups based on the following thresholds: poor (0 - 21); borderline (21.5 - 35); 
and acceptable (>35). For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - FFP Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator 
Tabulations for Development Food Security Activities. 
51 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 21
Figure 5: Frequency of Consumption of Food Groups
3.3.1 Relationship between Crops Harvested and FCS
Given that data collection extended into the first week of the harvest period and FCS is expected to be 
higher in the harvest period compared to the lean season, the 
survey asked farmers52 in the household how much of their 
crops they had harvested in the current season as a proxy for 
assessing the impact of the timing of the survey on household 
food consumption. Figure 6 illustrates that about eight in ten 
households had not harvested any of their crops. 
Households that harvested at least some of their crops are 
expected to achieve higher food consumption. However, 
results of bivariate analyses indicate no statistical association 
between the percentage of harvest completed and 
households’ FCS group or mean FCS. Households that did not 
harvest may have received food items from households that 
did harvest, and/or they could have purchased food items from 
the market (though price may still be a limiting factor for food 
access and consumption). This could be one explanation for 
the lack of statistically significant difference in FCS groups 
between households that harvested and those that did not. Since the survey did not collect information 
on income or consumption expenditures, the study cannot assess the indirect (i.e., income) effects of 
harvest on food consumption. 
 52 "Farmer" is defined as a person 15 years or older with access to a plot of land over which they make decisions, for example, 
what will be grown, how it will be grown, or how to dispose/sell/store the harvest." See further discussion in Section 3.4. 
Figure 6: Distribution of 
Households by Percentage of 
Harvest Completed
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
22 Findings
3.3.2 Practices Associated with Household Food Security 
Additional bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the association between FCS 
and intervention-specific factors expected to contribute to household food consumption, for example, 
improving access to credit to invest in productivity-enhancing inputs and adopting targeted agricultural 
practices, reducing post-harvest loss, and/or increasing income.53 This analysis assumes that if a single 
household member participates in a particular practice, e.g., taking agricultural credit, participating in 
group-based savings, or adopting an improved agricultural technology or technique, then the benefits of 
this practice accrue to the household as a whole. Details on the methodology for the bivariate and 
multivariate analyses can be found in Annex 4. 
The results of the bivariate analyses of FCS groups54 and FCS score55 indicate that households that have 
access to or use financial services, possess livestock holdings, and adopt a few targeted improved 
management practices are more likely to have better food security (i.e., achieve acceptable FCS rather 
than borderline or poor FCS compared to households that do not, and/or have a higher FCS score). There 
were a few select cases in which the bivariate analysis of the FCS score indicates that adoption of certain 
agricultural practices by households is associated with a lower FCS score. It should be noted that in the 
limited number of instances where this occurred, the average levels of FCS for both groups, those that 
adopted the practice and those that did not, remain quite high—above the threshold for acceptable
food security based on the FCS score. The results of the bivariate analyses of household food 
consumption groups and FCS are summarized in Figure 7.
Multivariate analyses were conducted to explore whether intervention-specific factors such as access to 
financial services, application of improved management practices, or participation in social assistance 
may influence FCS, while controlling for background socio-economic factors and village-specific 
influences that are unrelated to the RFSA. The results of the multivariate analyses suggest that the 
following factors are associated with higher FCS56:
• Participation in group-based savings programs;
• Use of seed treatment with fungicides;
• Use of climate information;
• Delaying seedlings until the 3rd or 4th rain to control pests; and
• Participation in nutrition trainings or meetings.
One factor to keep in mind is that the FCS is a snapshot of a household’s “usual” food consumption over 
the past week, which is useful for comparisons when data are collected cyclically across seasons or 
years. The FCS typically varies with the agricultural calendar, which itself is subject to variation based on 
weather conditions and trends. Agricultural planning—by farmers and by development interventions—
seeks to account for this year-round fluctuation that directly affects food security over the seasons.
 53 See Annex 7, Tables A7.1a – A7.1c. 54 See Annex 7, Table A7.1a for details. 55 See Annex 7, Table A7.1b for details. 56 See Annex 7, Table A7.1c for detailed results of the OLS regression of FCS.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 23
Figure 7: Summary of Statistically Significant Findings from the Bivariate Analyses of Household Food 
Consumption Score
FCS GROUPS
Households are more likely to achieve an 
acceptable FCS than borderline or poor if they:
Livestock holdings
 Raised at least one type of livestock
 Raised goats
 Raised poultry
Adoption of improved agriculture 
practices
 Used modern agricultural 
equipment
Adoption of livestock management 
practices
 Adopted at least one livestock 
management practice
MEAN FCS SCORE
Mean FCS score was higher among households 
that adopted the following practices compared 
to those that did not:
Access to/use of financial services
 Participated in agriculture saving 
schemes
 Participated in group-based savings 
program
Livestock holdings
 Raised goats
Adoption of improved ag practices
 Used seed treatment with fungicides
Adoption of livestock management 
practices
 Adopted at least one livestock 
management practice
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
24 Findings
3.4 Agriculture
The baseline survey collected information on size of farmland, use of financial services, and adoption of 
improved crop, livestock, and post-harvest handling and storage practices for the commodities of interest 
(i.e., sorghum, cowpeas, rice, and onions) and livestock of interest (i.e., goats, sheep, and poultry) in the 
RFSA area. Enumerators interviewed all farmers with access to a plot of land over which they make 
decisions57 and farmers with livestock over which they make decisions. In this study, characterizing 
farmers as having access to a plot of land does not require legal ownership.58 Similarly, identifying farmers 
as having livestock does not require that they own the livestock, but they should be able to make decisions 
about their management or how to dispose of, store, or sell production. Demographic characteristics of 
farmers (e.g., age, sex) by commodity are provided in Annex 6, Tables A6.5a – A6.5f. 
It is worth noting that, according to the qualitative data collected for the RISE I endline, there were few 
agriculture and livelihood projects in the Centre Nord region; the emphasis in this area was more on 
health and hygiene interventions. RISE I endline respondents noted specifically an absence of 
interventions in Centre Nord focused on livestock, savings groups, market gardens, and lowland farming, 
which is useful background for understanding some of the baseline results for agriculture indicators.
Another relevant point from Centre Nord focus group respondents in the RISE I endline is that it is not 
uncommon for households to both cultivate crops and raise livestock; an agriculture agent described 
farming and breeding as going “hand in hand.” This diversification was reported as already existing in 
the area and reinforced and encouraged by project interventions. Households were reported to employ 
a combination of crop and livestock production for income generation and home consumption and to be 
able to cope with shocks.
3.4.1 Type of Land Access and Farmland Size
Table 5 (next page) illustrates the percent distribution of farmers in the RFSA area by sex and age for 
each crop. Due to the small sample size of onion farmers, further disaggregated analyses for improved 
agricultural practices/technologies and other bivariate analyses for that group are not included in the 
report.
 57 Decisions over a plot of land include what will be grown, how it will be grown, or how to dispose of/sell/store the harvest. 58 The survey asked, "Do you own, rent, or sharecrop the land over which you make decisions?" A “yes” response puts that 
respondent in the general category of having access to land. The analysis also uses this response to disaggregate by type of 
access (i.e., access by virtue of owning, renting, or sharecropping); these results are discussed below in Sec. 3.4.1. 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 25
Table 5: Percent distribution of farmers in the RFSA area by crop, sex, 
and age
ViMPlus Sorghum Cowpea Rice Onion
SEX
Male 64.9 76.8 71.9 87.4 74.3
Female 35.1 23.2 28.1 12.6 25.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
AGE 
15-29 21.3 14.7 17.2 19.2 13.6
30+ 78.7 85.3 82.8 80.8 86.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
NUMBER OF FARMERS 1,077 751 822 114 39
Note: Includes all farmers with access to a plot of land over which they make decisions.
Baseline results indicate most farmers in the RFSA area own the farmland they access and have decision￾making authority over. Male farmers are less likely to own farmland than female farmers, but this 
difference is slight. Male farmers are more likely to rent compared to female farmers (see Figure 8). 59
Figure 8: Type of Land Access by Farmer’s Sex
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Note: Includes all farmers with access to a plot of land over which they make decisions. Access includes owning, 
renting, or sharecropping the land.
Figure 9 illustrates the percentage of farmers owning less than one hectare and one or more hectares. 
Female farmers are significantly more likely than male farmers to own less than one hectare. In turn, 
owning one or more hectares is significantly more common among male farmers compared to female 
farmers (90.7 percent and 57.7 percent, respectively). A similar pattern is seen for older farmers relative 
to younger farmers. See Annex 5, Table A6.6a for total farmland size by farmers' sex and age. 
 59 See Annex 6, Table A6.6a for additional details on land tenure by farmer age and sex.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
26 Findings
Disaggregating the farmland size by crop type illustrates similar sex and age disparities. See Annex 6, 
Table A6.6b – A6.6e for details by crop.
Figure 9: Farmland Owned (Hectares) by Sex and Age of Farmer (% of Farmers)
3.4.2 Use of Financial Services
Access to financial services enables households to make investments in productivity-enhancing inputs, 
manage risk, and diversify livelihood strategies.
60 Financial services include credit (loans), savings 
schemes, and insurance plans provided by formal and informal groups. Examples of financial services 
providers include banks, micro-finance institutions (MFIs), farmer associations, savings and loan 
facilities, Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs), and other types of communal social funds. As 
noted at the beginning of this section, the qualitative data collected for the RISE I endline indicated an 
absence of interventions in Centre Nord in savings groups, a background point relevant to 
understanding the starting context for ViMPlus. 
Half of the farmers in the RFSA area used any financial services in the 12 months prior to the survey 
(49.4 percent) (see Annex 5). Male farmers are just as likely to use any financial services as female 
farmers.61
3.4.3 Use of Improved Post-Harvest Handling and Storage Practices
Use of improved storage practices can help minimize post-harvest losses due to pests (insects, rodents), 
micro-organisms (molds), or chemical alterations within grains due to environmental factors such as 
temperature and humidity.62
 60 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
61 Annex 6, Table A6.7 provides additional details on use of financial services in the RFSA area. 62 See FAO definition of post-harvest losses. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/t0522e/T0522E04.htm.
9.1
90.9
42.5
57.7
32.3
67.8
15.6
84.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<1.0 hectares ≥1.0 hectares
Male farmers Female farmers 15-29 30+
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 27
A total of 31.6 percent of farmers used improved storage. Annex 5 provides details on the percentage of 
farmers using at least one improved storage practice.
Sealed/airtight bags are the most commonly used type of improved post-harvest storage practice, 
followed by triple bags for preserving grains. Between 15 and 20 percent of sorghum and cowpea 
farmers use sealed/airtight bags. Triple bags for seed or grain preservation are used by five percent of 
sorghum farmers and ten percent of cowpea farmers. 
In general, use of improved storage practices does not differ by farmer’s sex or age, with a few 
exceptions.
63 
There was some indication in the RISE I endline qualitative data that households appreciated the 
benefits of managing food stocks. As one Centre Nord respondent stated, “There is a change in the way 
people deal with shocks, for example in the household, when women learn better management of food 
input stocks so that there is no shortage of food during the year.”
3.4.4 Use of Improved Crop Practices
The baseline survey collected information on the use of improved crop practices or technologies
promoted by the RFSA to increase agricultural productivity or support more-resilient and better￾functioning systems.64 Table 6 (see next page) illustrates the extent to which targeted improved crop 
practices are adopted by farmers in the RFSA area.
65 The subsequent sections discuss the use of 
targeted improved crop practices in more detail.
 63 See Annex 6, Tables A6.8a – A6.8d for details. 64 See Annex 6, Tables A6.8a – A6.8d for details. 65 Annex 5 provides sampling statistics for the percentage of farmers using improved practices by type and crop.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
28 Findings
Table 6: Heat Map of Adoption of Targeted Improved Crop Practices and Technologies by Crop
Sorghum Cowpeas Rice
Crop genetics Use of improved seeds*
Cultural
Control of sida cordifolia NA
Crop association NA
Crop rotation NA
Sowing after useful rain NA
Respect cultural calendar NA NA
Nursery preparation NA NA
Natural resources or 
ecosystem management
Farmer managed natural 
regeneration (FMNR)
Animal corridors/pasture areas
Pond protection
Community conflict mgmt.
Recovery of degraded lands
Develop low-lying and/or market 
gardens
Pest and disease 
management
Delay of seedlings (3rd/4th rains) NA
Seed treatment w/ fungicides NA
Weed control NA NA
Pest control NA NA
Soil-related fertility and 
conservation 
Zai pits NA
Organic manure
Phosphatic manure
Compost
Micro-doses of fertilizer NA
Mineral fertilizer NA NA
Soil preparation NA NA
Agriculture water 
management non-irrigation Agricultural half-moons
Climate adaptation/risk 
management 
Use of climate information 
Other practices
Performing 3+ weedings NA
Use of modern agricultural 
equipment
Use of agricultural credit
Wide application 
(~50 percent or more)
Moderate application 
(~20 – 49 percent)
Some application 
(~11 – 19 percent)
Low/no application 
(~10 percent or less)
* Per BHA definition, improved seed includes varieties bred by local or international research institutions (e.g., ICRISAT) 
and private seed companies, mostly for the characteristics of yield, drought tolerance, disease resistance, ease of 
preservation, and taste.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 29
The baseline survey results indicate the following over-arching findings for the use of crop and natural 
resource management (NRM) practices:
• Crop association (i.e., intercropping) and sowing after first useful rains are the most popular 
targeted improved cultural practices among sorghum and cowpea farmers; adoption rates range 
between moderate (about 20 to 49 percent) to widespread (about 50 percent or more). Between 
20 and 49 percent of rice farmers prepare nurseries. 
• Among the suite of soil-fertility related conservation practices, application of organic manure is 
widespread, followed by phosphatic manure. Construction of zai pits is most common among 
sorghum and cowpea farmers. Half or more rice farmers prepare soil. 
• FMNR, delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas, and protecting ponds from silting are 
the leading improved NRM practices among sorghum, cowpea, and rice farmers. 
• Less than 10 percent of sorghum, cowpea, and rice farmers use improved seed varieties that are 
high-yielding, drought-tolerant, or disease-resistant. 
• Sorghum and cowpea farmers rarely use targeted pest and disease management practices, but 
weed and pest control is more common among rice farmers. Non-irrigation-based agricultural 
watering practices are most common among rice farmers. Performing at least three weedings and 
using modern agricultural equipment (e.g., harnessed cultivation equipment, carts, small 
equipment)66 is practiced by a moderate percentage of sorghum and cowpea farmers. 
• Other infrequently applied targeted practices include climate adaptation and risk mitigation 
practices, agricultural credit to enhance production, development of low-lying or market gardens, 
crop rotation, pond protection, functional community-based conflict management, recovery of 
degraded lands, and controlling growth of sida cordifolia.
3.4.4.1 Sorghum
The survey interviewed a total of 751 sorghum farmers. See Table 7 for the percent distribution of 
sorghum famers by sex and age in the RFSA area. 
Table 7: Percent Distribution of Sorghum Farmers by Sex 
and Age in the RFSA Area
ViMPlus
SEX
Male 76.8
Female 23.2
Total 100.0
AGE
15-19 0.8
20-24 6
25-29 7.8
30-34 12.6
35-39 12.1
 66 Modern agricultural practices include the use of manga hoes, donkey plows and / or cattle for plowing, hoeing and ridging, 
carts, wheelbarrows, and rippers as well as small equipment (e.g., pickaxes, shovels, crowbar, forks, sloping triangle). 
Definitions of these practices are provided in the Enumerator’s Question-by-Question Module and are described in the FFP 
Indicator Handbook. A summary of the definitions is provided in Annex 4.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
30 Findings
40-44 12.8
45-49 10.8
50-54 11.2
55-59 7.8
60+ 18.1
Total 100.0
NUMBER OF SORGHUM FARMERS 751
Figure 10 illustrates the use of improved crop practices among sorghum farmers. Results are presented 
for practices used by five percent or more of farmers. Use of improved practices by sorghum farmers 
generally does not differ statistically by farmer sex or age, with a few exceptions.
67
Figure 10: Sorghum Farmers Adopting Targeted Improved Crop Practices (%)
Note: Results are presented for practices used by five percent or more of farmers. See Annex 6, Table A6.5a for details, including 
disaggregation by age and sex.
 67 See Annex 6, Table A6.9a for details.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 31
3.4.4.2 Cowpeas
The baseline survey interviewed a total of 822 cowpea farmers. Table 8 illustrates the percent 
distribution of cowpea farmers by age and sex in the RFSA area. 
Table 8: Percent Distribution of Cowpea Farmers by Sex and 
Age in the RFSA Area
ViMPlus
SEX
Male 71.9
Female 28.1
Total 100.0
AGE
15-19 1.5
20-24 7.9
25-29 7.8
30-34 13.6
35-39 12.8
40-44 11.9
45-49 9.9
50-54 10.4
55-59 7
60+ 17.3
Total 100.0
NUMBER OF COWPEA FARMERS 822
Figure 11 illustrates use of improved crop practices among cowpea farmers. Use of improved practices
among cowpea farmers generally does not differ statistically by farmer sex or age, with a few 
exceptions.
68
 68 See Annex 6, Table A6.5b for details.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
32 Findings
Figure 11: Cowpea Farmers Adopting Targeted Improved Crop Practices (%)
Note: Results are presented for practices used by five percent or more of farmers. See Annex 6, Table A6.5b for details, including 
disaggregation by age and sex.
3.4.4.3 Rice
The baseline survey interviewed a total of 114 rice farmers. See Table 9 for the percent distribution of 
rice famers by sex and age in the RFSA area.
Table 9: Percent Distribution of Rice Farmers by Sex 
and Age in the RFSA Area
ViMPlus
SEX
Male 87.4
Female 12.6
Total 100.0
AGE
15-19 7
20-24 12.1
25-29 10.9
30-34 8.8
35-39 11.4
40-44 11.5
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 33
ViMPlus
45-49 5.6
50-54 11
55-59 21.6
60+ 7
Total 100.0
NUMBER OF RICE FARMERS 114
Figure 12 illustrates the percentage of rice farmers using improved practices in the RFSA area. Use of 
targeted improved practices among rice farmers generally does not differ statistically by farmer sex or 
age, with a few exceptions.69
Figure 12: Rice Farmers Adopting Targeted Improved Crop Practices (%)
Note: Results are presented for practices used by five percent or more of farmers. See Annex 6, Table A6.5c for details, including 
disaggregation by age and sex.
 69 See Annex 6, Table A6.5c for details. 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
34 Findings
3.4.5 Use of Improved Livestock Practices
The baseline study interviewed a total of 464 goat herders, 545 sheep herders, and 430 poultry farmers. 
See Table 10 for the percent distribution of goat, sheep, and poultry farmers by age and sex. 
Table 10: Percent Distribution of Goat, Sheep, and Poultry Farmers by Sex and Age
Goats Sheep Poultry
SEX
Male 70.2 69.2 82.7
Female 29.8 30.8 17.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
AGE
15-19 1.6 1.3 0.9
20-24 5.9 8.7 7.7
25-29 7.3 10.3 7.4
30-34 12.8 10.9 9.5
35-39 13.4 13.8 12.7
40-44 12.6 12.5 14.3
45-49 12.5 7.9 10.2
50-54 10.1 9.9 11.5
55-59 82 8.9 8.1
60+ 15.5 15.7 17.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
NUMBER OF FARMERS 464 545 430
Table 11 provides a “heat map” illustrating the extent of adoption of targeted improved livestock 
practices and technologies.70 As noted at the beginning of this section, the qualitative data collected for 
the RISE I endline indicated an absence of interventions in Centre Nord in livestock, a background point 
relevant to understanding the starting context for ViMPlus. 
Table 11: Heat Map of Adoption of Targeted Improved Livestock Practices and Technologies
Goats Sheep Poultry
Vaccinations
Antiparasitic treatments NA
Improved fodder production NA
Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block NA
Animal selection NA
Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep NA
Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time NA
 70 Definitions of these practices are provided in Enumerator’s Manual 2020 Baseline Survey of the Food for Peace Development 
Food Security Activities in Burkina Faso and described in the FFP Indicator Handbook. Refer to Annex 5 for sampling statistics 
for the percentage of farmers using improved livestock practices by commodity.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 35
Goats Sheep Poultry
Weight monitoring NA
Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision NA
Use of improved poultry variety/breed NA NA
Use of improved shelters NA NA
Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, 
etc.) NA NA
Use of improved feed NA NA
Wide application 
(~50 percent or more)
Moderate application 
(~20 – 49 percent)
Some application 
(~11 – 19 percent)
Low/no application 
(~10 percent or less)
Antiparasitic treatments and vaccinations are the most-used targeted improved practices (see Figure 
13). Relatively few goat or sheep herders use animal selection, improved fodder production, licking and 
multi-nutritional blocks, improved fodder production, or paraveterinary services. Fifteen percent or less 
of poultry farmers use improved shelters, improved feed, improved poultry breeds, or consult with 
public or government animal workers for veterinary services. There are generally few statistically 
significant differences by farmers’ sex or age in the application of targeted improved livestock practices 
among goat and sheep herders. See Annex 6, Tables A6.10a, A6.10b, and A6.10c for details.
Figure 13: Farmers Adopting Targeted Improved Livestock Practices, by Livestock Type (%)
Note: Results are presented for practices used by five percent or more of farmers. See Annex 6, Tables A6.10a, A6.10b, and 
A6.10c for details, including disaggregation by age and sex.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
36 Findings
3.4.6 Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Practices
Use of financial services is expected to contribute to the adoption of improved agricultural practices, 
particularly those that require cash for the purchase of inputs, such as fertilizer, improved seeds, 
equipment, and feed, or payment for services such as labor or veterinary services. Table 12 summarizes 
targeted improved agricultural practices that are more likely to be applied by farmers using a financial 
service compared to those who are not, by commodity.
There is some evidence that obtaining agricultural credit or participating in agricultural saving schemes 
is associated with higher percentages of farmers adopting improved practices that require cash inputs.
Table 12: Summary of Targeted Improved Practices
The baseline survey results also show positive and statistically significant associations between the use 
of agriculture-related financial services and the adoption of improved practices that do not necessarily 
require cash inputs (e.g., applying organic manure, sowing after first useful rains, performing at least 
three weedings, controlling for sida cordifolia growth). This suggests that underlying factors associated 
with the use of financial services may also be contributing to the adoption of improved agricultural 
practices. For example, farmers who participated in agricultural saving schemes or took agricultural 
credit may also have participated in agricultural trainings or meetings where they gained exposure to 
those practices. 
Obtained 
agri-credit
Participated in 
agri-saving 
schemes
CROP PRACTICES
Use of improved seeds S, C S, C
Control of sida cordifolia growth C
Delimitation of animal corridors/pasture areas C
FMNR S, C, R S, C
Developed low-lying/market gardens S, C
Seed treatment with fungicides S, C
Zai pits S
Organic manure S
Agricultural half-moons (W)
Use of climate information (G)
Performing 3+ weedings S, C S, C
Grain treatment with agro-chemicals S S
POST-HARVEST STORAGE PRACTICES
Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture C
Sealed/airtight bags 
LIVESTOCK PRACTICES
Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision GO
Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time SH
Improved feed PO
Vaccines PO
NOTES: S = sorghum; C = cowpeas; R = rice, GO = goats; SH = sheep, PO = poultry.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 37
The qualitative component of the RISE I endline study provides some insights into factors that contribute 
to the adoption of improved agricultural practices in Burkina Faso, as discussed below.
Demonstrated results: Farmer focus groups in the RISE I endline study noted with appreciation that 
using certain project-promoted practices had demonstrated effects in improving crop yields. Most-often 
mentioned were the use of organic manure, improved seed varieties, diversified cultivation practices, 
and agricultural tools/implements. 
Training approach: According to RISE I endline focus groups, the projects employed a farmer field school 
and cascade approach to training on agricultural practices, and there was also a multiplier effect 
whereby training participants shared their newly learned information with neighbors and with 
surrounding villages that did not participate in RISE I projects directly. One focus group stated that 
women who had received training were in turn training men who had not participated, which changed 
the gender dynamic, especially when coupled with women’s increased ability to earn income after 
adopting some project-promoted practices. This sharing of new agricultural knowledge was aided by 
documentation provided during the trainings that could be shown and passed on to others, and also 
served to reinforce concepts presented because these tangible materials could be reviewed after the 
trainings. Sharing information also helped to build social cohesion.
Adherence to traditional methods: While project trainings were generally described in RISE I endline 
focus groups as important, some focus group discussants stated that adoption of promoted methods 
was not universal, describing some farmers as “linked to their old traditions.” When probed for 
examples of promoted practices that farmers had adopted, none of the six Centre Nord focus groups 
named zai pits; two mentioned “line of stones” water retention barriers (cordon pierreux); two 
mentioned organic fertilizer.
3.5 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Household access to and use of basic water and sanitation facilities coupled with the adoption of proper 
hygiene practices, such as handwashing with water and soap (or ash) at critical moments, can help 
reduce the spread of waterborne illnesses such as diarrhea and other diseases among all household
members, especially children under five.
71 Annex 6, Table A6.11 provides details on household WASH. 
This section describes household access to WASH facilities. While the indicators discussed provide a 
robust measure of access to basic facilities, they do not measure actual use of those facilities.
3.5.1 Drinking Water Source
BHA defines basic drinking water services as improved sources or delivery points that fulfill the following 
criteria: 72 
• Protected from fecal contamination
• Collection time is 30 minutes or less (round-trip including wait time) 
• Consistently produce (i.e., year-round) 20 liters per person per day of basic drinking water
 71 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
72 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
38 Findings
• No interruptions in service in the two weeks prior to data collection
Because the survey did not collect information on year-round water access, the official indicator for 
access to a basic water source cannot be calculated. Instead, the percentage of households whose water 
source meets all other criteria (i.e., improved source, 30 minute or less round trip, production of at least 
20 liters per person per day, and no interruptions in the last two weeks) was calculated. 
A drinking water source protected from fecal contamination is available to most households in the RFSA 
area (97 percent). Among households with access to a protected water source, the most common 
source is a tubewell/borehole (50.1 percent), followed by public tap/standpipe (36.4 percent). 
About one-quarter of the households can access a water source in 30 minutes or less round-trip (24.3 
percent). However, for many households, those sources do not produce the daily minimum requirement 
to meet their drinking, sanitation, and hygiene needs. Household access to a water source that produces at 
least 20 liters per person per day is 53.8 percent of the sample. A majority of households did not 
experience interruptions in service in the two weeks prior to the survey (68.2 percent).
The analysis indicates that few households have access to a drinking water source that meets all four 
criteria collected for the baseline survey (8.9 percent). Few households do anything to make their water 
safer to drink (9.7 percent).73
 73 Household respondents were asked "Do you do anything to the water to make it safer to drink?" Possible response options 
are 'YES', 'NO,' and 'DON'T KNOW.' Households were not asked about the technique used to make water safer to drink (e.g., 
boiling, chlorination, etc.,). Therefore, conclusions on the use of correct treatment methods cannot be made. 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 39
3.5.2 Sanitation Facility 
According to the WHO/UNICEF Joint 
Monitoring Program, a “basic sanitation 
facility” must meet two conditions: i) it must 
be an “improved sanitation facility” (i.e., 
hygienically separates excreta from human 
contact)74 and ii) it is not shared with other 
households. As shown in Figure 14, under a 
third of households in the RFSA area have
access to a basic sanitation facility (27.4 
percent). Another third of the households 
have “limited service,” i.e., access to an 
improved sanitation facility that is shared 
(28.2 percent). The most common improved 
sanitation facility used (in both the shared and 
unshared categories) is a pit latrine with a slab 
(see Annex 6, Table A6.11). Just over one-third 
of households have no facility and/or practice 
open defecation (35.8 percent). Finally, about 
one in ten households has a non-improved 
sanitation facility (8.3 percent). Annex 6, Table 
A6.11 provides additional details on sanitation 
facilities accessed by households.
3.5.3 Handwashing Station
A handwashing station is a fixed or mobile 
location where household members wash their hands with water and soap or ash.75 The measurement 
of this indicator is based on observation by the enumerator rather than self-reported information: the 
enumerator is shown the station where household members commonly wash their hands; water and 
soap or ash must be observed there. Nearly six out of ten households were observed to have a 
handwashing station (58.7 percent) with soap or ash present. See Annex 5 for the percentage of 
households with a handwashing station by gendered household type. 
3.5.4 Knowledge of Critical Moments for Handwashing
Handwashing with water and soap or ash at critical moments can lower the incidence of diarrhea and 
other illnesses. Critical moments for handwashing include: i) after possible fecal contact, for example, 
after defecation, changing a diaper, or cleaning the toilet, and ii) before handling food, such as prior to 
 74 Improved sanitation facilities include those that flush or pour to a piped sewer system, septic tanks or pit latrines; ventilated 
improved pit latrines, composting toilets and pit latrines with slabs. See https://washdata.org/monitoring/sanitation. 75 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
Figure 14: Household Sanitation Facility
8.3
27.4
28.2
35.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
No Facility/Bush/Field
Improved, shared sanitation facility
Improved, not shared sanitation facility
Non-improved sanitation facility (excl. open
defecation)
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
40 Findings
Figure 15: Percentage of Households with Knowledge of the Critical Moments for Handwashing
eating, preparing food, or feeding a child.76 Figure 15 presents the percentage of households with 
knowledge of the critical moments for handwashing.77 Nearly all households are knowledgeable about 
the importance of handwashing before eating. Few households are aware of critical junctures for 
handwashing that relate to other food-handling activities such as before cooking and food prep (20.9 
percent) and before breastfeeding or feeding children (4.8 percent). Many households understand the 
importance of handwashing when hands are dirty, but fewer are aware of the need to do so when 
engaging in activities posing a risk of fecal contact. Forty-five percent of households are knowledgeable 
of the need for handwashing after defecation, 5.9 percent after cleaning a toilet, and 2.6 percent after 
changing a diaper. 
3.6 Women’s Health and Nutrition
As noted in Section 3.4, the qualitative data collected for the RISE I endline indicated a strong project 
emphasis on health interventions in the Centre Nord region, which is relevant background for 
understanding some of the baseline results for health indicators. 
3.6.1 Women’s Minimum Dietary Diversity
Diverse diets are associated with better micronutrient content, which in turn contributes to better 
health and nutrition.78 The women’s minimum dietary diversity indicator (MDD-W) captures the 
percentage of women of reproductive age (15-49 years) who consume five or more of ten food groups 
 76 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
77 Respondents were asked about the important moments to wash hands. Multiple responses were allowed. Percentages can 
add up to more than 100.
78 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 41
in the day and night before the survey. Though this indicator does not capture the frequency of 
consuming food items, the threshold of five groups is correlated with higher micronutrient adequacy.79
The baseline survey results show that 61.7 percent of women 15-49 years receive an MDD-W (see Annex 
5), with no statistically significant difference between women 15-19 years and women 20-49 years.80
Figure 16 illustrates the food groups consumed by women in the 24 hours prior to the survey. Nearly all 
women of reproductive age (99.7 percent) consume grains, roots, and tubers. Most women’s diets 
include dark green leafy vegetables (90.5 percent), pulses (80.1 percent), and meat, poultry, and fish
(72.8 percent). A little over two-thirds consume other vegetables (65.6 percent); more than one-third 
consume fruits (38.7 percent) and other vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables (38.4 percent), and close to 
one quarter (22.1 percent) consume dairy.
Figure 16: Food Groups Consumed by Women 15-49 Years
Bivariate and multivariate analyses of MDD-W were conducted to identify differences by background 
characteristics and intervention-specific factors expected to contribute to women’s nutrition. Figure 17
summarizes the determinants that are related to achievement of MDD-W resulting from the bivariate 
analysis.81
The results show that women are more likely to achieve a diet of minimum diversity if they: 
• Engage in cash-earning activities;
• Reside in households in higher FCS groups;
• Reside in households with livestock holdings (in particular, goats);
• Reside in households that apply targeted improved livestock management practices; or
• Reside in households that participated in nutrition trainings/meetings (whether RFSA-specific or 
from any other donor).
 79 See FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. 
80 Refer to Annex 5 for details on MDD-W by age. 81 See Annex 7, Table 9a for full results from the MDD-W bivariate analysis.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
42 Findings
Figure 17: Statistically Significant Associations between MDD-W and Intervention-Specific Factors
Multivariate analyses were conducted to explore whether intervention-specific factors such as access to 
financial services or application of improved management practices may influence women’s dietary 
diversity while controlling for individual and household characteristics and village-specific influences. 
The results of the multivariate analyses show that women are more likely to achieve a diet of minimum 
diversity if they resided in households that:82
• Participated in agricultural activities;
• Raised goats or raised poultry;
• Took out an agricultural loan or used agricultural credit;
• Adopted the application of organic manure, performed at least three weedings, delayed seedlings 
to control pests, or performed crop association; or
• Used locally made storage or solar/fuel-powered dryers.
Participation in social assistance activities, whether in a BHA RFSA activity or activities promoted by 
other donors, was not associated with women consuming a diet of minimally adequate diversity when 
controlling for other factors.
3.6.2 Antenatal Care
Antenatal care (ANC) can help reduce maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality through early 
detection and treatment of complications that may arise during pregnancy, as well as through the 
management of concurrent diseases and illnesses such as HIV and malaria via integrated health care 
 82 See Annex 7, Table A7.9b for detailed results of the logistic regression of MDD-W. 
• Participation in cash earning activities
Women’s characteristics
• Residing in households in higher FCS group
Household food security
• Livestock holdings (goats)
Household assets and access to/use of financial services:
• Use of at least one improved livestock management practice for any type of livestock
Household adoption of targeted improved management practices
• Participation in nutrition trainings/meetings
Participation in social assistance activities
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 43
delivery.
83 ANC should be provided by skilled health personnel such as a doctor, midwife, or nurse. To 
detect and effectively treat underlying problems, the first ANC visit should occur as early as possible, 
and within the first trimester.84
A total of 898 live births occurred in the RFSA area in the five years prior to the survey.85 Of these, the 
percentage of most-recent births receiving at least four ANC visits by a skilled health professional was 
61.3.
86 The majority of live births received at least one ANC visit with a skilled health professional (99.5 
percent). Among those births that received at least one ANC visit, 61.5 percent received their first ANC 
visit during the first three months of pregnancy.87
3.6.3 Contraceptive Methods 
Voluntary and safe family planning are central to improving women and children’s health, reducing 
HIV/AIDS, advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment, and reducing poverty.88 Knowledge 
of family planning methods is a prerequisite to accessing and using those methods. Women’s ability to 
make educated and voluntary choices about childbearing, including the use of contraception, is critical 
to their empowerment and overall well-being. 
The survey considers women to be knowledgeable of modern contraception if they are aware of at least 
three modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy.89 Knowledge of 
modern contraceptive methods among women in a union is widespread in the RFSA implementation 
area (92.5 percent). 
Most women in the RFSA area do not use any form of contraception (modern or traditional) (75.2 
percent).
90 The contraceptive prevalence rate (modern and traditional methods combined; see Annex 5) 
was 24.8 percent. Of those who do, most rely on modern methods (24.6 percent). Injectables and 
implants are the most-used methods of modern contraception. Less than one percent of women use 
fertility awareness methods such as the Standard Days Method or Lactational Amenorrhea Method. 
Those results and additional details on contraceptive use by type for modern and traditional methods 
are shown in Annex 6, Table A6.14. That analysis finds that more than two-thirds of women who use 
modern contraception participated in the decision to use modern family planning (69.4 percent). Among 
these women, half (53.2 percent) decided alone and 16.2 percent decided jointly with their spouse. 
 83 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
84 WHO. 2004. Standards for Maternal and Newborn Health: Provision of Effective Antenatal Care (Section 1.6). Geneva, 
Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2007/a91272.pdf. 85 Refers to the most recent live birth because a woman may have had more than one birth in the five years preceding the 
survey. However, the survey collected information only for the most recent birth (as opposed to all births). 86 As of 2019, the WHO revised its recommendation for the minimum number of visits from four to eight. WHO 2016 Guidelines 
on Antenatal Care are available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978924154991. 87 Annex 6, Table A6.13 provides additional details on the use of ANC services, including information on ANC provider. 88 Refer to https://www.usaid.gov/global-health/health-areas/family-planning. 89 The modern family planning methods used for the calculation of this indicator are female sterilization, male sterilization, 
intrauterine devices, injectables, implants, contraceptive pills, male condom, female condom, diaphragm with spermicide, 
emergency contraception, standard days method, and lactation amenorrhea method. Refer to Annex 5 for details on 
knowledge of modern family planning methods by age group. 90 In this survey, traditional family planning methods are the rhythm method, withdrawal, and other traditional methods.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
44 Findings
Refer to Annex 5 for additional disaggregation of contraceptive decision-making by age and actor(s) (i.e., 
alone or jointly with spouse). 
3.7 Children’s Health and Nutrition
3.7.1 Children’s Minimum Dietary Diversity
Like women’s dietary diversity, children’s dietary diversity has been linked to micronutrient adequacy. A 
child is considered to achieve a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-C) if they consumed five or more of 
eight food groups during the day or night before the survey. The indicator is restricted to children 6-23 
months and includes both breastfed and non-breastfed children. Although breastmilk is included as one 
of the food groups, this indicator does not capture breastfeeding status but rather serves as a proxy 
measure for complementary feeding. The percentage of children 6-23 months consuming MDD-C was 
50.8 percent.91 Figure 18 illustrates the food groups consumed by children 6-23 months. In addition to 
breastmilk (93.5 percent), grains, roots, and tubers (82.6 percent) and vitamin-A rich fruits and 
vegetables (63.1 percent) are widely consumed by children 6-23 months. Although one-half of children 
6-23 months achieve MDD-C, and the consumption of grains, roots, tubers and vitamin-A rich fruits and 
vegetables is widespread, the frequency and quantity consumed is not known.
Figure 18: Food Groups Consumed by Children 6-23 Months, Past 24 Hours
Most results of the bivariate analyses of MDD-C were statistically non-significant owing to small sample 
size.
92, 93 Key findings indicate:
 91 Based on a sample size of 405 children 6-23 months. 92 The analytical sample for the bivariate analyses of MDD-C was restricted to children 6-23 months with data available across 
all variables (N=390). 93 Detailed results are provided in Annex 7, Table A7.10.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 45
• The percentage of children achieving MDD-C generally did not differ by the child’s background 
characteristics or household sociodemographic characteristics, with one exception. The 
percentage of children with MDD-C is higher for children aged 12-17 months and children aged 
18-23 months compared to children aged 6-8 months and children aged 9-11 months.
• Children in households with food security impacted by COVID-19 were less likely to achieve an 
MDD-C compared to children living in households that did not report that their food security was 
impacted by COVID-19.
• Children living in households that adopted the improved agricultural practices of seed treatment 
with fungicides or using modern agricultural equipment were more likely to achieve an MDD-C 
compared to children in households that did not use either of these practices.
• Children living in households who used at least one improved livestock management practice are 
more likely to achieve MDD-C compared to children living in households that do not use at least 
one improved livestock management practice.
• Participation in social assistance programs was not related to differences in the prevalence of 
MDD-C.
3.7.2 Diarrhea and Oral Rehydration Therapy
Diarrhea is the leading cause of mortality for children under five, despite the availability of low-cost 
management treatments such as oral rehydration therapy.
94 Prolonged and repeated bouts of diarrhea 
are also linked to malnutrition. In the RFSA area, 20.4 percent of children under five experienced 
diarrhea in the two weeks preceding the survey. Among children who experienced diarrhea, nearly all 
received oral rehydration therapy (80.3 percent).95
Bivariate analysis of the prevalence of diarrhea among children under five did not differ statistically by 
improved sanitation facility, drinking water source, water treatment, access to a handwashing station 
with water and soap (or another cleaning agent), or knowledge of the critical moments for handwashing 
in the RFSA area (see Annex 7, Table A7.11). 
Several factors may partially explain the lack of statistical significance between diarrhea prevalence and 
other WASH indicators. While most households have access to an improved water source (97 percent) 
and over half are able to obtain enough water to meet their daily cooking, cleaning, and hygiene needs 
(53.8 percent), only one-quarter (24.3 percent) can obtain water in 30 minutes or less round trip. A 
smaller percentage of households (8.9 percent) have access to a water source that meets four of the five 
criteria of a basic water source, and only 9.7 percent do something to make their water safer to drink. 
Although access to an improved drinking water source and handwashing station with water and soap or 
ash serve as proxies for use, it does not guarantee households are using those facilities, let alone in any 
consistent fashion. Moreover, environmental hygiene could also be a factor. The presence of animal 
feces (e.g., from chickens) near/in the household is a source of pathogens that children may ingest 
directly or by mouthing objects. 
As with agriculture, RISE I adopted a cascade training approach in health and nutrition, and the endline 
qualitative data suggest that this was well received and effective in transmitting information across 
 94 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
95 Annex 4 provides additional disaggregation of the prevalence of diarrhea and treatment via ORT, by sex.
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
46 Findings
households, even those that did not directly participate in project activities. Some of this knowledge 
sharing was informal and undirected – women sharing with other women they knew – whereas some 
was an express component of project design, e.g., made possible by working through village chiefs, 
village development committees, or women’s associations. Another component of the approach noted 
as helpful was the distribution of health and hygiene manuals and displaying posters on family well￾being at health centers and places of worship.
3.8 Gender
This section discusses gender findings related to cash-earning, access to credit, and participation in 
community groups. The baseline survey collected information on women and men’s participation in 
cash-earning activities, group membership, and access to credit. Cash can be used toward making 
investments in productivity-enhancing inputs and for the purchase of diverse and more nutritious food. 
For women, partaking in cash-earning activities can contribute toward empowerment and gender 
equality, for example by giving women a greater say in the allocation of household resources and other 
decisions regarding their own well-being and that of their children. Access to credit, like participation in 
cash-earning activities, provides access to productive resources and is important for gender equality and 
women’s economic empowerment.
96
Participation in community groups facilitates access to information and resources. By strengthening 
social networks and community bonds, participation in community groups also enhances the resilience 
of households and communities in the face of shocks and stressors. 
3.8.1 Gender and Cash-Earning Activities
In this survey, a household member is considered to participate in cash-earning activities if they are paid 
for their work in cash or a combination of cash and in-kind. Individuals who are unpaid or paid in-kind-only 
are excluded. Work includes employment in the formal and/or informal sectors, including full-time, part￾time, or seasonal work performed within and/or outside the home.97 Care work, such as looking after 
children and other household members, is not included. The survey asked all household members aged 15 
years and older in a union about their work participation in the past 12 months. However, the indicator on 
cash-earning is based on the response of women and men in a union rather than all cash earners.98
The percentage of women in a union partaking in paid work is significantly less than one-half that of 
men in a union in the RFSA area. Close to half of men in a union (45.9 percent) are paid in cash or a 
combination of cash and in-kind compared to 19.1 percent of women in a union (p<0.001). Participation 
in cash-earning activities is generally low for both men and women in a union, suggesting few 
opportunities for cash-earning activities in the RFSA area.99
 96 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for 
Development Food Security Activities. 
97 Examples of cash-earning activities include agricultural daily wage labor, off-farm daily wage labor, sale of goods produced or 
processed outside the home or at the home, homestead garden or farm or petty trading, cash for work, food for work, 
conditional cash transfers and/or productive safety net programs. 
98 Refer to Section 3.1 and Annex 6, Table 6.1 for estimates of the percentage and number of cash earners in the RFSA area. 99 Annex 5 provides additional details on the percentage of women and men in a union participating in cash-earning activities 
by age.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 47
According to the RISE I endline qualitative data for Centre Nord, women’s adoption of project-promoted 
production practices had led to increased income, which in turn helped them participate in household 
expenses and diversify their income-earning activities. These changes, as well as women’s participation 
in trainings in and of itself, also contributed to an increased status and role in household decisions vis-à￾vis their husbands. This finding provides support for the potentially transformative impacts of increasing 
women’s access to income and cash alongside relevant livelihood trainings.
3.8.2 Gender and Group Participation
Community groups can be formal or informal and include agricultural and livestock producers’ groups, 
land users’ groups, water users’ groups, credit, or microfinance groups (e.g., VSLAs), savings groups, 
local government, religious groups, mothers’ groups, and women’s groups. Questions on participation in 
community groups were asked only to the youngest female in a union and her spouse.100 Where the 
household was comprised of only one married woman, that woman and her spouse were interviewed. 
Men’s participation in community groups is significantly greater than women’s (77.1 percent, 73.5 percent, 
respectively) (p<0.05). Men and women both tend to join producers’ groups, water groups, mutual help or 
insurance groups, religious groups, safe spaces and conflict resolution groups. Women tend to join 
mothers’ groups, whereas men are likely to participate in civic groups, youth groups, and sport groups.101
3.8.3 Gender Differences in Access to and Decisions About Credit
Women and men are considered to have access to credit if anyone in their household took out a loan or 
borrowed cash or in-kind from a formal or informal source in the 12 months preceding the survey. Formal 
channels of borrowing include banks, NGOs, and group-based microfinance/VSLAs. Informal channels of 
credit include family and friends, money lenders, and informal credit and savings groups. Questions on 
gender differences in access to credit and group membership were asked to the youngest woman in a 
union and her partner.102 A woman or man is considered to “access credit” if anyone in the household 
took out a cash or in-kind loan from any of the six formal and informal sources mentioned in the survey. As 
shown in Figure 19, 29.4 percent of men and 27.1 percent of women accessed credit in the past 12 
months. Figure 19 provides details about decision-making by households that took a loan in the last 12 
months. A woman or man is considered to participate in credit decisions if they made the decision, alone 
or jointly, on whether to borrow or what to do with the loan for at least one of the loan sources accessed 
by the household.103 A woman or man is considered to decide alone on credit decisions if they decided 
alone whether to borrow and what to do with the loan for each loan accessed by the household.
 100 The survey was streamlined for a non-permissive environment. Thus, in order to reduce the length of the interview, rather 
than interviewing all women and men in a union the youngest female in a union and her partner were selected. The youngest 
female in a union was selected in order to get a more conservative estimate of access to credit and community participation 
since interviewing the eldest female might upward bias the results because of hierarchical relationships in polygamous and 
extended households.
101 Refer to Annex 6, Table A6.16ag for the percentage of women and men participating in community groups by type of group. 102 Because of the prevalence of polygamy and multigenerational households in the region, the youngest woman in a union was 
selected to obtain a more accurate understanding of gender equality and female empowerment, since the youngest married 
female often faces the most challenges and is actually the least empowered. 103 The survey has two questions on credit decision-making for each lending source that the respondent reported someone in 
the household took out loan from. Response options for each of the credit decision questions are 'self,' 'partner/spouse,' ‘other 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
48 Findings
Figure 19: Gender Gap in Access to and Decisions about Credit
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Most women and men belonging to households that took out a loan in the past 12 months had some 
input into the decision to borrow and/or what to do with the loan.104 The percentage of men 
participating in decisions about credit was high (89.4 percent); the rates were lower for women (73.1 
percent). Gender differences in participation in credit decisions are statistically significant. 
The baseline survey findings indicate that men are more likely than women to make credit decisions 
alone (70.1 percent and 37.5 percent, respectively) (p<0.001). Joint decision-making about credit is 
generally less prevalent, where 19.3 percent and 35.6 percent of men and women, respectively, decide 
jointly (p<0.01).
105
3.9 Resilience
Shocks and stresses such as droughts, floods, and loss of income threaten progress toward food and 
nutrition security. The RFSA aims to build the resilience of chronically poor and vulnerable households as 
a conduit for achieving sustainable food and nutrition security. USAID defines resilience as “the ability of 
 
household member,' ‘other non-household member' and 'not applicable.’ Multiple responses are allowed. For example, a 
respondent can report 'self,' 'partner/spouse' and 'other household member.’ In this case they would be considered to 
participate in the decision (jointly).
104 Includes individuals who decide alone and those who decide jointly with someone else. Two decisions are considered: (1) 
whether to borrow; and (2) what to do with the loan. Multiple responses are allowed for the lending source and decision 
actors. Joint decision-making includes individuals who decide with their partner, with another household member, or with a 
non-household member on whether to borrow or what to do with the loan for at least one of the loans made by the household. 
Sole decision-making (i.e., making decisions alone) includes individuals who decide alone on whether to borrow and what to do 
with the loan for all loans taken by the household. 
105 Additional details on access to credit and decisions about credit by age are provided in Annex 5.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Findings 49
people, households, communities, countries, and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks 
and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth.”106 The 
baseline survey collected information on the financial and social aspects of households’ resilience 
capacities that are critical for mitigating the effects of shocks and stresses. Specifically, the baseline
gathered data on perceptions of local government capacity to respond to future shocks and stressors, 
households’ social capital, and access to group-based savings and cash. 
3.9.1 Perceptions of Local Government Capacity to Respond Effectively 
to Future Shocks and Stressors
Perceptions of local government capacity to respond to future shocks and stressors is a proxy measure 
of trust and belief in the efficacy and legitimacy of public institutions, one of the underlying dimensions 
of transformative capacity. The baseline survey results indicate that most households in the RFSA area 
believe the local government institutions can respond effectively to future shocks and stresses (89.6 
percent).107
3.9.2 Social Capital
Social capital refers to the network of relationships that foster support and collaboration among 
individuals, households, and communities. Social capital is an important predictor of households’ ability 
to manage shocks and stressors.
108 The social capital index is constructed from two sub-indices: an index 
of bonding social capital and an index of bridging social capital. The bonding social capital index 
measures the strength of households’ support networks within their community (i.e., ability to give and 
receive support from family and friends in times of need). The bridging social capital index measures the 
strength of households’ social support networks with outside communities. Both indices range from 0 to 
4 and are subsequently normalized to range from 0 to 100. The overall social capital index is the average 
of the bonding and bridging sub-indices. A higher score reflects stronger networks of mutual obligation 
that households can draw on in difficult times. The bonding social capital score is generally higher than 
the score for bridging social capital (71.2 and 62.4, respectively), suggesting that social obligation 
networks are stronger within the community than outside. 
3.9.3 Household Participation in Group-Based Savings, Micro-Finance, or 
Lending Programs
The use of financial services enables households to diversify livelihood strategies and manage risks.
109
The indicator measuring participation in group-based savings, micro-finance, or lending program 
includes both formal and informal groups such as VSLAs, credit unions, and other formal or informal 
group-based finance or lending groups. This indicator differs from estimates of access to credit and 
savings among farmers and estimates of access to credit among women and men in a union in that the 
 106 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDResiliencePolicyGuidanceDocument.pdf. 107 Chi squared tests of differences in proportions were performed and indicated no statistically significant difference (p<0.05)
by gendered household type in the percentage of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future 
shocks and stresses. 
108 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. 109 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
50 Findings
latter include a broader range of service providers or sources, and therefore are likely to be higher than 
the estimates of group-based access to credit and savings discussed in this section.
110 The results 
indicate that only 4.8 percent of households in the RFSA area participate in group-based savings, micro￾finance, or lending programs;111 3.6 percent participate in community-based savings groups; and 1.6 
percent participate in community-based credit groups. See Annex 5 for additional details.
 110 Refer to FFP Indicators handbook for detailed description. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/food￾assistance/documents/ffp-indicators-handbook-part-i-indicators-baseline-and-endline-surveys-dfsa. 111 The chi-squared test of statistical differences in proportions indicated no differences in the proportion of households 
participating in group-based savings, micro-finance, or lending programs by gendered household type. 
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Conclusions and Recommendations 51
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section describes the conclusions and recommendations for the BHA ViMPlus RFSA baseline study 
in Burkina Faso. Because the 2020 baseline study did not include a qualitative component, data from 
secondary qualitative sources were used to help interpret and contextualize the results and inform 
conclusions and recommendations. Conclusions and recommendations were refined based on feedback 
received from IPs during a baseline findings presentation. 
FOOD SECURITY: Baseline estimates indicated higher-than-expected food consumption with the 
majority of households meeting the threshold for acceptable food consumption. Consumption of 
staples, such as bread and sorghum, and pulses is widespread throughout the ViMPlus RFSA area. 
However, households across all three FCS groups are less likely to eat roots and tubers, animal-based 
proteins, and fruits and vegetables. Although statistical analyses did not indicate an association between 
the percentage of harvest completed and household food consumption, it is possible that the timing of 
the survey, which overlapped with the start of the harvest period, may have inflated results for food 
consumption: households that did not harvest any crops at the time of the survey may have received 
food items from households that had, and/or may have purchased food items from the market. There is 
some evidence that household food consumption increases with access to financial services 
(participation in group-based savings groups), livestock holdings (sheep), the application of soil-related 
fertility practices, and the adoption of post-harvest handling and storage practices. 
Recommendations: Nutrition meetings and trainings could emphasize the importance of consuming 
diverse food groups and demonstrate ways to incorporate different food groups into daily meals. 
Agriculture-related trainings can focus on new types of fruits and vegetables to grow. However, limited 
financial resources, especially during the lean season, may constrain the ability of households to 
incorporate diverse food groups frequently, and households that grow more-nutritious foods may opt to 
sell them. Increasing the use of improved post-harvest storage can help households extend food 
provisioning for a few months during the lean period. Qualitative research and/or cost-of-diet studies 
could help identify locally available nutritious wild foods and/or cheaper foods for household 
consumption and identify effective behavior change communication messaging to promote those items.
LAND OWNERSHIP: Female farmers are more likely to own land than male farmers, but this difference is 
marginal, and their plot size is generally smaller compared to male farmers. 
Recommendations: Further research is needed to understand the structural factors (i.e., cultural,
religious, economic, ecological, and institutional) that impede women’s access to land for cultivation, 
and to support initiatives that improve women’s land rights. 
USE OF FINANCIAL SERVICES: Half of all farmers, regardless of being male or female, used agriculture￾related financial services in the ViMPlus RFSA area. Farmers are more likely to participate in saving 
schemes than to take out loans. 
Recommendations: Although utilization of financial services is relatively high, efforts to promote 
additional utilization of financial services to support adoption of improved livelihood practices should be 
continued. Adoption of practices that require substantial purchases of material inputs is relatively low. 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
52 Conclusions and Recommendations
Agriculture-related meetings and trainings could focus on improving financial literacy and build on 
traditional community-based borrowing mechanisms to increase the use of financial services.
USE OF IMPROVED STORAGE PRACTICES: Sealed/airtight bags are the most-used type of improved post￾harvest storage practice, followed by triple bags for preserving grains. However, their use is relatively low. 
Recommendations: Extending access to credit can be one pathway for improving the adoption of post￾harvest handling and storage. A better understanding of post-harvest loss per crop, drivers of loss, and 
the role of the myriad factors that can reduce loss would be helpful for informing future initiatives. 
USE OF IMPROVED CROP PRACTICES: The most common crop management practices are applying 
organic and phosphatic manure, zai pits, crop association, sowing after first useful rains, and NRM 
approaches such as delimiting animal corridors and pasture areas, FMNR, and protecting ponds from 
silting. A moderate percentage of farmers indicate using modern agricultural equipment. Practices that 
are unfamiliar or require resources to purchase inputs, such as using improved seed varieties and pest 
and disease management practices, are less pervasive. RISE I endline qualitative data suggest that access 
to agricultural inputs, including tools, is difficult in the project areas, which affects their ability to pilot 
new practices, sustain the beneficial practices, and stimulate demand for the inputs they find effective. 
Qualitative data from the RISE I endline study also indicate that training participants shared improved 
agricultural practices with others, and that sharing of new agricultural knowledge was aided by 
documentation provided during the trainings that could be shown and passed on to others. 
Recommendations: ViMPlus should continue agricultural credit and saving schemes and agricultural 
trainings with informational handouts to reinforce learning and promote further socialization.
USE OF IMPROVED LIVESTOCK PRACTICES: With the exception of vaccinations, application of most 
targeted improved livestock practice is low. Although the current baseline findings show that livestock 
vaccination rates are high, future programs might consider supporting systems-level expansion into these 
areas as well as training community members in veterinary services, keeping in mind that monetary costs 
of veterinary products and services may restrict their adoption and should be factored into system design. 
Recommendations: Future initiatives should consider i) the extent to which livestock farmers are able to 
access existing veterinary services (such as government programs) on a permanent basis and ii) farmers’ 
ability to afford veterinary services and products. Further research should be undertaken to assess the 
extent of these potential barriers. 
WASH: Access is low in the ViMPlus RFSA area to basic sanitation facilities, but households have more 
access to handwashing stations with water and soap/ash and improved drinking water sources that 
consistently meet the minimum daily needs. Nearly all households are knowledgeable about the 
importance of handwashing before eating. 
Recommendation: Sensitization should focus on other critical times that households are less aware of –
namely, those relating to other food handling activities such as before cooking and food preparation and 
when engaging in activities posing a risk of fecal contact. It would also be good to assess the presence of 
animal feces in children's play spaces to develop interventions to separate animal feces from children's 
play areas. This can be done by penning animals, improving flooring, and/or promoting child 
playpens/mats.
Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. I)
Conclusions and Recommendations 53
WOMEN’S DIETARY DIVERSITY: Two-thirds of women of reproductive age in the ViMPlus RFSA area
achieve a diet of minimum diversity. Sensitization on the importance of eating a variety of food types, 
particularly those that are less widely consumed such as dairy products, meat, poultry, fish and vitamin 
A-rich fruits and vegetables, could support VimPlus RFSA nutrition goals. Kitchen demonstrations in 
which women from the community show how to incorporate different food groups into daily meal 
preparation could also be useful. Results underscore that women consume more-diverse diets when 
they engage in income-earning activities, live in households that are more food secure, or participate in 
nutrition trainings/meetings, or live in households that raise goats and use improved livestock practices. 
Recommendations: Future projects should continue to promote savings and access to credit and other 
livelihood interventions that increase income, which in turn leads to improvements in women’s dietary 
diversity. 
ANTENATAL CARE: More than two-thirds of (most-recent) births that occurred in the five years prior to 
the survey received at least four ANC visits by a skilled health personnel. Behavior change communication 
efforts should continue to emphasize the importance of ANC, with a focus on how often to make ANC 
visits, when to make the visits (i.e., timing), and who is qualified to provide those services. In some cases, 
the lack of availability of ANC services or distance to a health center may be a barrier. 
Recommendations: Sensitization should target both mothers and fathers so that fathers can support 
women in going to their ANC visits and in other aspects of their pregnancy and delivery. 
FAMILY PLANNING: Knowledge of modern contraceptive methods among women in a union is 
widespread in the RFSA implementation area; however, very few women use any form of family 
planning. Further exploration is needed to identify and address barriers to using family planning, 
including affordability of consultation services, cost of purchasing contraception, and underlying cultural 
or religious beliefs. Results from the baseline survey point to the role of husbands in contraceptive 
decision-making; about one half of women who use family planning made the decision alone.
Recommendations: Sensitization efforts should target both women and men and underscore the 
significance of family planning for women’s wellbeing and the overall family (e.g., role of family planning 
and benefits of spacing births).
CHILDREN’S DIETARY DIVERSITY: Vitamin-A-rich fruits and vegetables and grains and tubers are widely 
consumed by children 6-23 months, and half of the children in the ViMPlus RFSA area achieve a diet of 
minimum diversity (MDD-C). 
Recommendations: Projects should continue to raise awareness among primary caregivers on the health 
benefits of complementary feeding, and the appropriate time to introduce complementary foods 
without cutting back on breastfeeding. Sensitization around complementary feeding could be rolled into 
ANC and perinatal care visits and through mothers’ groups, GASPAs (female-led nutrition support groups), 
and other community nutrition groups with demonstrations on how to integrate appropriate quantity and 
frequency of nutrient-rich foods into children’s meals. Sensitization for fathers through fathers’ groups 
could also enhance the sharing of household decision-making affecting children’s dietary diversity. 
IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning
54 Conclusions and Recommendations
GENDER, GROUP PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO CREDIT: Men are more likely than women to engage 
in cash-earning activities while three-quarter of women and men belong to community groups. 
Participation in community-based savings and credit groups is low for both men and women. 
Recommendations: A better understanding of the barriers to credit for both men and women and 
access to cash-earning activities for women is needed. Women’s time constraints may limit their ability 
to engage in work and institutions that provide access to credit could be strengthened.
COVID-19 KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICES, IMPACTS AND COPING STRATEGIES (see Annex 8): The majority of 
households in the RFSA implementation area are aware of COVID-19. Most households experienced 
impacts to their food security and livelihoods due to COVID-19. The types of impacts suggest that the 
ramifications of COVID-19 at the time of the survey are mostly due to restrictions and closures rather 
than health impacts. 
Recommendation: Continued monitoring is needed to ensure continued public health and food security 
as the pandemic continues.