provider may often also be the funder for the evaluation, these papers are identified separately from working papers published through academic institutions where such conflicts of interest are less likely to occur.

**Publication Bias –** The first step in any systematic review involves the identification of relevant research so that conclusions are based on a comprehensive body of evidence which is not biased in some important way. If researchers or journal editors have a tendency to publish studies with a certain type of result (for example, in this case studies which show that financial education programs are effective in changing behavior, rather than studies showing no impact) this can result in one form of publication bias. The fact that many studies in the financial education literature (and in social science research more generally) involve little-known research projects with small sample sizes further exacerbates this problem since the broader community of practice may not be aware of instances where research results are not published or widely disseminated. By contrast, medical research trials which involve large public grants and large sample sizes are under more scrutiny and pressure to share results. Including studies from the “gray literature” which have not been published in journals can help to reduce the impact of this type of publication bias.

In addition to including gray literature in the systematic review, this paper reviews all of the impact evaluations cited in previous narrative literature surveys as well as all interventions in the recently released meta-analysis by Fernandes et al. (2013). Further, papers were identified through searches of broad terms in Econlit, and on websites and through World Bank research. As such, this paper encompasses a broader, and more comprehensive, analysis of the literature than previous reviews, which reduces the likelihood of this type of publication bias. Appendix 2 also presents evidence from an econometric test (metafunnel in Stata) for publication bias to help show the extent to which the review may be affected by missing studies.

Failing to publish the results from research is perhaps the most well-known type of publication bias, but it is not the only one. Other types of publication bias (or dissemination bias) which can negatively impact a systematic review include language bias (including only research in a certain language); availability bias (limiting consideration to research which is readily available to the researcher); cost bias (including only research papers that are available for free or at a low cost); familiarity bias (limiting the research to papers in one’s own discipline); and outcome bias (reporting selectively on the empirical data in papers to highlight certain types of results) (Rothstein, Sutton and Borenstein 2005). These various types of publication bias are not considered significant issues for this review. In terms of language bias, the vast majority of research on this topic internationally has been done in the United States (perhaps due to the greater level of consumer lending and less heavily regulated financial markets) and in the English language. Further, the search process did not use language as a criterion for inclusion and where nonEnglish language research was identified, efforts were made to include these studies. In terms of availability, studies on financial literacy and capability are generally publicly available through online databases available to academic researchers or on websites of relevant NGOs, public agencies or multilateral organizations. No study was eliminated due to a cost consideration and in some cases authors were contacted directly to request copies of articles not readily available on-line (in a few instances of older research articles). Also, this review extends beyond typical economics journals to 11