Background: The need for evidence-based, effective interventions is especially great in literacy -- particularly for young students, mastering early literacy skills is predictive of later school success (Slavin et al., 2011). Understanding the relationship between letters and sounds, also known as the alphabetic principle, is essential for children to develop the solid foundation required to build phonics and phonemic awareness skills (Boyer & Ehri, 2011; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsiey, 1989). These skills are particularly difficult to learn for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH). Limited access to sounds makes literacy development challenging -- so that evidence-based explicit interventions are necessary (Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008; Kyle & Harris, 2011). While a broad literature exists, and has been synthesized, regarding reading and writing interventions for struggling or at-risk readers, this same effort has not been conducted for students who are D/HH (Easterbrooks & Dostal, 2020; Strassman & Schirmer, 2013). Objective: This study aims to produce a comprehensive and rigorous up-to-date review on literacy programs specifically developed for students who are D/HH. Through its work, the study expects to promote effective use of proven literacy programs for these students. Setting: The review included findings from studies that examined the efficacy of programs and practices designed to improve literacy outcomes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in schools serving students from grades preK-12. Population: The review included studies of students who are deaf or hard of hearing in grades preK to 12. Intervention: Interventions examined included reading and writing programs and practices designed to improve literacy outcomes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Research Design: This study uses a best-evidence synthesis approach (Slavin, 1986), which combines traditional techniques of systematic review with narrative descriptions of individual programs and studies. Data Collection and Analysis: Inclusion Criteria The review used the following inclusion criteria: 1. Published/publicly available in 2010 or later. 2. Evaluated the effects of a reading or writing intervention on literacy outcomes of children who are D/HH. 3. Study population are students in PreK through grade 12. Literature Search Procedure: A broad literature search was carried out in an attempt to locate every study that could possibly meet the inclusion requirements. Electronic searches were made of educational databases, including ERIC, EBSCO, and PsycInfo. Other internet search engines, educational publisher websites, and third-party evaluator websites were also searched. Citations from identified studies and previous reviews of interventions were examined for possible inclusion. Study Review and Coding Procedures: Once potential studies were identified, we screened studies for relevance, and reviewed the study full texts against the inclusion criteria using the Covidence online platform. Finally, we extracted details of the included studies by coding them into a standardized database. Findings: A total of 85 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Overall, these studies exhibited an assorted set of methodological approaches, with 69% of studies using single subject designs and 31% of studies using comparison group designs including quasi-experimental and randomized designs. While many studies were methodologically sound, some studies exhibited flaws such as issues with interrater reliability (Beal-Alvarez et al., 2012). The specific approaches of the interventions in the included studies fell into three main categories: programs targeting vocabulary (e.g., Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons paired with Visual Phonics, Bedrock Literacy), programs targeting writing skills (e.g., Strategic and Interactive Writing Intervention, Self-Regulated Strategy Development), and programs targeting phonics and decoding skills (e.g., Foundations for Literacy, Corrective Reading-Decoding with Visual Phonics). Within each category, there were effective programs identified. There was substantial heterogeneity across these studies. The settings for these studies were also quite varied, ranging from residential schools for the deaf, to classrooms within public schools. Additionally, the populations were quite diverse, with varying levels of hearing loss and access to amplification via hearing aids and cochlear implants, as well as students with languages other than sign language or English spoken at home. This diversity highlights that this student population cannot be treated as a homogenous block, and that focusing on means may ignore that the effectiveness of these interventions is likely population- and context-dependent. Finding a match between program and user is likely key. Conclusions: Many programs exist to support literacy instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. While the effectiveness of these programs is variable, effective models do exist. Schools should be encouraged to choose from among these proven programs to ensure all students have access to effective literacy instruction.