|**Table 1: Reviewe**<br>**Methodology/**<br>**paper section**<br>RCT|**d studies**<br>**Author Year**<br>**Country**<br>**Clark, Kabiru,**<br>**Laszlo &**<br>**Muthuri 2019**<br>Kenya|**Population**<br>Poor mothers in<br>an informal<br>settlement in<br>Nairobi|**Years of**<br>**study**<br>2015-2016|**Type of childcare**<br> Vouchers for well-<br>established & registered<br>daycares|**Ages of**<br>**children in**<br>**care (years)**<br>1-3|**Daily length**<br>**of care**<br>Not specified|**Type of analysis**<br>randomized control<br>trial, difference in<br>differences|**MLFP rate of**<br>**study population**<br>**(baseline or**<br>**control group)**<br>49%|<br>**Impact on labor force**<br>**participation**<br>17% increase in employmen<br>if mothers receive a voucher|**Impact on hours**<br>**worked**<br>t<br> <br>No difference overal<br>Among working<br>mothers, there was<br>reduction in 20<br>hours/week|**Impact on income**<br>l.<br>a<br>Slight increase in<br>earnings; no change<br>in earnings among<br>mothers who were<br>already employed|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Martínez &**<br>**Perticará 2017**<br>Chile|Selected<br>municipalities<br>without existing<br>childcare<br>programs|2012|After-school care<br>including homework<br>support and<br>extracurricular activities|6-13|3 hours after<br>school|Randomized control<br>trial, difference in<br>differences|90%|6 percentage point increase<br>in materal employment if<br>care is available for child|<br>No impact|No impact|
||**Barros, Olinto,**<br>**Lunde &**<br>**Carvalho 2011**<br>Brazil|Low income<br>neighborhoods<br>in Rio de Janeiro|2008|Free, publicly provided|0-3|Full time|Instrumental variabl<br>analysis based on<br>random assignment<br>to childcare|e<br>36%|Winning the child care lotte<br>increases probabilty of<br>maternal employment by<br>10%|r<br>No impact|Incomes increased by<br>16%|
|RD|**Berlinski,**<br>**Galiani, &**<br>**McEwan 2011**<br>Argentina|National|1995-2001|Public preschool|3-5|Not specified|Regression<br>discontinuity using<br>before and after<br>cutoff birthdates as<br>instrument for<br>childcare|Around 50% if<br>youngest child is<br>age 4, around<br>30% if a younger<br>child. Full time<br>employment<br>around 10% less<br>for each of these|No change if younger<br>children in the household, 3<br>6% increase if youngest chil<br>is age 4; 5-8% for work >20<br>hours/ week|-<br>d<br>No change if younge<br>children in the<br>household, 7-10<br>hours/week increas<br>if youngest child is<br>age 4|r<br>e|
||**Dang, Hiraga**<br>**& Viet Nguyen**<br><br>Vietnam|National|2010-2016|Preschool and day care,<br>mostly publicly provided|1-5 years;<br>limited<br>|Typical hours<br>are 7:30 am -|<br>Regression<br>discontinuity around<br>|<br> <br>92% working, 31%<br>in a wage-earning<br>|<br> <br>No impact generally, but<br>child care use results in a<br>|No impact|Weak evidence<br>indicating an<br>|
||**2019**||||availability<br>for children<br>under age 3|4:30 pm|age eligibilty cut-off;<br>2SLS & bivariate<br>probit for continuou<br>variables|<br>s<br>job|41% increase in the<br>probability of a wage-<br>earning job (in contrast to<br>self-employment)||increase in wages;<br>22% decrease in the<br>probability of being<br>poor.|
|continues next pag|**Ryu, 2019**<br>Brazil<br>e|National|2011-2015|Public preschool|4|Most offer a<br>half-day (4-5<br>hours)|Regression<br>discontinuity using<br>before and after<br>cutoff birthdates as<br>instrument for<br>childcare|50% among<br>women with no<br>additonal younge<br>children or<br>coresident<br>relatives (e.g.<br>potential<br>caregivers)|r<br>No impact|23 hour increase in<br>the work week,<br>among mothers<br>without additonal<br>younger children or<br>coresident relatives<br>(e.g. potential<br>caregivers); 18 hour<br>reduction in time<br>spent on chores|<br> <br>|

2