In order to effectively identify and recommend the best strategies for early learning investments in our community, a crew of experts has been assembled to evaluate the various MELF initiatives: the MELF Research Consortium is made up of The Center for Early Education – CEED – at the University of Minnesota, Child Trends, SRI International and Wilder Research. When the MELF initiative ends in 2011, evaluation results across many projects will include knowledge about what works best - and most cost-effectively – to promote school readiness in children from low income families or families facing other challenges.

In 2007, CEED was charged with the task of generating a list or taxonomy of features underlying effective early childhood programs based on research. This taxonomy  helps to identify areas where MELF research can contribute to the knowledge-base needed to make good choices for our children's early care and education.

MELF’s conceptual framework lays out the logic underlying all our projects. We expect our investments to improve school readiness outcomes by affecting children and families, early care and education programs, communities and the early childhood system. Our overarching research questions fall into those four levels of impact:

Outcomes for Children and Families

• At the end of MELF’s funded programs, initiatives, strategies and approaches, to what extent are low-income children in MELF-funded projects on a developmental trajectory towards school readiness or ready for school as measured by a range of child assessment tools?
• To what extent do low-income families served by MELF-funded programs and initiatives have access to and make use of the resources available to them to help their children be ready for school?
• Do low-income families served by MELF-funded programs have access to and make use of the information available to them regarding the quality of early care and education programs?

Outcomes for Programs 

• To what extent do MELF-funded programs meet criteria for innovative, effective, high-quality programs?
• To what extent are MELF-funded strategies cost-effective? How does this cost-effectiveness compare to other initiatives in early care and education?

Outcomes for Communities

• How have MELF-funded programs, initiatives, strategies and approaches improved their communities’ abilities to sustain quality early care and education programs?

Contributions to the Early Childhood Field

• How have MELF-funded initiatives contributed to the knowledge of best practices in early childhood education as defined by the MELF taxonomy?