calculate an effect size that is meaningful and comparable across the entire literature, yet Fernandes et al. estimate such an effect size which includes interventions that are fundamentally different across many characteristics such as how outcomes are measured (binary or continuous), targeted populations, and mode of delivery. We take a more conservative approach and carefully screen and compare studies with similar outcome measures and intervention characteristics. This greater precision comes at a cost, however, as we are only able to compare binary outcomes for a subset of studies that pass our comparability screening. However, this careful analysis allows us to classify interventions among key topics such as savings, record keeping, and debt management, yielding more nuanced results in terms of the evidence of impact. Investigating the details of interventions and outcome measures in this way additionally allows us to present important stylized facts about financial literacy programs.

This paper proceeds as follows. Section II describes the systematic review process including a brief discussion of meta-analysis and the rationale for using this tool for such a diverse body of literature. In this context, we look at previous narrative reviews and the literature they cover to help understand why their findings on the impact of financial education have not been consistent. Section II also discusses the search approach used to identify relevant studies in journals, working papers, and other publications, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Section III provides information about the data set including both the program descriptions and outcome variables that were identified. Section IV presents the results of the meta-analysis, its potential unique contribution, and limitations. Section V concludes. Appendices 1 and 2 provide supplemental materials on the meta-analysis, and Appendix 3 summarizes ways to strengthen the research protocols of financial literacy studies going forward.

# **II. The Systematic Review Process Including Meta-Analysis**

This paper uses a systematic review process, including meta-analysis, to compare and contrast the findings of a large body of literature on the impact of financial literacy and capability interventions. The systematic review includes five steps:

- i) Hypothesis

- ii) Search approach and inclusion / exclusion criteria

- iii) Collection and coding of data

- iv) Statistical analysis (meta-analysis)

- v) Conclusions

A systematic review of a diverse body of literature helps to identify patterns in the data and develop insights on the nature and quality of divergent evidence. The descriptive statistics that are presented in Section III based on the coded data from the 188 studies of financial education interventions provide valuable insights on what has been studied thus far, the research methods which have been used, and initial insights on the evidence. However, there are limits to what can be gleaned from these types of rough comparisons.

Meta-analysis was developed to facilitate a statistically rigorous comparison of data across independent studies. By pooling data and statistical information across studies, papers which may individually point 5