8080- Module 3
Discussion 4: Supporting Resilience
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. —Frederick Douglass, American abolitionist and civil rights leader
Resilience reflects the capacity to recover from challenges that can threaten development. Within the context of human development, resilience includes pathways or processes that can support positive developmental trajectories, despite a context that has introduced adverse experiences (Masten, Gewirtz, & Sapienza, 2013). Professionals in the early childhood field must have knowledge and skills that foster resilience, thereby supporting positive outcomes for children and their families.
In this Discussion, you explore the concept of resilience and strategies that foster resilience in young children and their families. You also have an opportunity to educate others about the incredible importance of fostering resilience
Note: The format for your initial post within this Discussion is an Opinion Editorial (often called an OP-ED article published in newspapers and other media) highlighting the significance of resilience and current research on how resilience can be fostered.
To prepare for the Two-Part Task:
Refer to this module’s Learning Resources and read the articles by Masten, “Global Perspectives on Resilience in Children and Youth,” and by Pizzolongo and Hunter, “I Am Safe and Secure: Promoting Resilience in Young Children.” Then, select and read one additional peer-reviewed research article, less than 5 years old, from the Walden Library on fostering resilience in young children and families. As you review each of these articles, consider the importance of resilience and how resilience can be contextually supported and cultivated.
Assignment Task Part 1
· Write a 400-word Opinion Editorial (OP-ED piece) that provides your opinion accompanied by a research-based analysis of the importance of resilience and current research highlighting how resilience can be fostered
· Include the implications of your analysis for your practice as a professional and your interactions with young children and their families
Cite appropriate references in APA 7 format to substantiate your thinking.
Please use intext citations.
Be sure label each section to identify each task in art 1 and 2.
Assignment Task Part 2
Adopting the lens of an advocate for an early childhood policy organization,
Respond to two or more your colleagues’ postings in the following ways:
· Write a 200-word response on Seeking clarification regarding factors that are most likely to support resilience.
· Write a 200-word response on Identifying potential collaborative efforts that can most likely influence positive outcomes.
Cite appropriate references in APA 7 format to substantiate your thinking. Please use intext citations.
Global Perspectives on Resilience in Children and Youth
Ann S. Masten University of Minnesota
Global concerns about the consequences of disasters, political violence, disease, malnutrition, maltreatment, and other threats to human development and well-being have sparked a surge of international interest in resilience science. This article highlights progress and issues in research that aims to understand variations in human adaptation to adverse experiences. Two key questions are considered: Why is a new wave of global research on resilience important for developmental science? and Why is developmental science important for global resilience? The conclusion calls for developmental scientists to engage in international efforts to pro- mote resilience.
The development of children around the world is threatened by disasters, political violence, pandem- ics, and other adversities that can have life-altering consequences for individuals, families, and the future of all societies. The beginning of the 21st cen- tury was punctuated by a terrifying sequence of events affecting large numbers of victims across the world. These include 9/11 and subsequent terror attacks, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean triggered by one of the largest earthquakes in human history, the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the 2008 earthquake in China, HIN1 flu, and the triple disaster of 2011 in Japan of earthquake, tsunami, and meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Reports from the United Nations (UN) indicate that tens of millions of children each year are exposed to disasters and conflicts, and many are displaced as a result (UNHCR, 2010; UNICEF, 2011, 2012). Millions more suffer abuse or neglect from caregiv- ers (Cicchetti, 2013b) and sex trafficking or other forms of exploitation (Hartjen & Priyadarsini, 2012).
These well-publicized adversities have raised global concerns about dangers posed to children as well as the future of societies, while also highlight- ing a lack of preparedness to handle such calami- ties. These concerns have spurred renewed attention to resilience across many fields of research as governments and international agencies search for evidence and guidance on what helps to mitigate risk and promote resistance or recovery in
the face of these threats to human life. Develop- mental science is well positioned to contribute to and benefit from a more integrated and global sci- ence of resilience.
In this article, I invite the reader to consider two related questions: Why is a new wave of global research on resilience important for developmental science? and Why is developmental science impor- tant for global resilience? A brief history of resil- ience research in child development is highlighted first, including major accomplishments and cri- tiques. Subsequently, I describe the maturation of developmental resilience science, progress toward a global knowledge base on resilience in children and youth, and enduring controversies. The conclusion offers some preliminary answers to the two ques- tions, describes signs of globalization in the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), and issues a call to action for developmental scientists.
Resilience can be broadly defined as the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to distur- bances that threaten system function, viability, or development. The concept can be applied to sys- tems of many kinds at many interacting levels, both living and nonliving, such as a microorganism, a child, a family, a security system, an economy, a forest, or the global climate. Interest in resilience as a concept and observable phenomenon emerged around the same time but independently in theThis article is based on the Presidential Address at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, in Seattle, April 19, 2013.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ann S. Masten, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Elec- tronic mail may be sent to [email protected]
© 2013 The Author Child Development © 2013 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2014/8501-0002 DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12205
Child Development, January/February 2014, Volume 85, Number 1, Pages 6–20
fields of ecology (e.g., Holling, 1973) and psychol- ogy (e.g., Garmezy, 1971; Murphy & Moriarty, 1976). Both areas of science, as well as many others, were influenced by general systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968).
The word itself has roots in the Latin verb, resilire (to rebound). The concept has been adopted by many fields concerned with how well complex systems anticipate, adapt, recover, and learn in the context of major threats, surprises, and disasters(e.g., Gunder- son, Allen, & Holling, 2010; Hollnagel, Woods, & Leveson, 2006; Zolli & Healy, 2012). Social scientists intrigued with understanding how some people escape the harmful effects of severe adversity, cope well, bounce back, or even thrive, eventually settled on this word to label the focus of their research.
Resilience research in developmental science has deep roots in research and theory in child develop- ment, clinical sciences, and the study of individual differences (Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2013). The history of research on resilience is closely tied to the history of developmental psychopathology (see Cicchetti, 2013a; Masten, 2013) and the relational develop- mental systems theory that infuses this integrative approach to understanding variations in human adaptation over the life course (Lerner et al., 2012; Overton, 2013; Sameroff, 2000).
The Emergence of Resilience Research in Child Development
World War II (WWII) set the stage for the emer- gence of resilience science, bringing worldwide attention to the plight of children affected by the devastation (Werner, 2000). Many children died and millions more survived in perilous condition: orphaned, injured, sick, traumatized, and starving. Huge numbers of children were evacuated or dis- placed. Shortly after the war ended, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) was founded to address this global emer- gency (Diers, 2013), and “CARE” was organized in the United States to send aid to Europe (initially the Cooperative for American Remittances to Eur- ope; later the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere), sending millions of CARE packages to Europe, often addressed simply, “For a hungry person in Europe” (Werner, 2000).
Clinicians from different disciplines were called on to help with children psychologically affected by the war, including Anna Freud, who founded the Hampstead War Nurseries in England for children in need of care. Freud and Burlingham (1943) pub-
lished a volume on their observations, War and Chil- dren, where they noted that children rarely showed “traumatic shock” when a parent was present and also that caregivers’ reactions were important for children’s reactions. A few systematic studies were done of children during WWII, but research was limited by scarce resources and the exigencies of war itself (Garmezy, 1983).
A rather different legacy of WWII was its effects on the lives of individuals who would become pio- neers in resilience science. For example, Norman Garmezy (1985; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983) was a young American soldier who served in the infantry in Europe, observing the Battle of the Bulge first- hand. Emmy Werner (Werner & Smith, 1982) sur- vived the devastation of Europe as a young girl, directly experiencing the support of international relief efforts. Michael Rutter (1979, 1987) was one of the British children evacuated to safety in the United States during the war. These three would play leading roles in the rise of resilience science.
As research on mental health expanded after WWII, investigators identified risk factors associ- ated with elevated probabilities for various dis- orders and problems. In childhood, maltreatment, violence, and traumatic life events were often stud- ied by risk researchers because they were common and consistently associated with high risk for psy- chopathology. Research on high-risk children soon revealed wide variation in outcomes and inspired research on children who were doing well despite adversity or risk (Cicchetti, 2013a; Evans, Li, & Whipple, 2013; Masten, 2013).
Disasters also played a key role in early research on risk and resilience (Masten & Narayan, 2012). One occurred in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, in 1972, when a coal slurry impoundment dam gave way, flooding and destroying the community below and killing 125. Ensuing litigation yielded extensive lon- gitudinal data on effects of this disaster on children and adults (e.g., Gleser, Green, & Winget, 1981; Korol, Kramer, Grace, & Green, 2002). Despite con- cerns about potential bias in data obtained for law- suits, numerous findings were replicated in subsequent research on mass-trauma events (Masten & Narayan, 2012). Children and adults showed dose-response gradients, for example, with more symptoms among individuals exposed to greater destruction, injury, and loss. Seventeen years later, dose effects were largely gone, although some trauma symptoms lingered; recovery and resilience appeared to be the norm (Green et al., 1994; Korol et al., 2002).
A disaster on the other side of the world, the Australian Bushfire of 1983, also provided remark-
Global Perspectives on Resilience 7
able documentation of short- and long-term effects of disaster on children. McFarlane (1987; McFarlane & Van Hooff, 2009) compared symptoms among a large cohort of fire-exposed school children with students from schools outside the directly exposed region, both shortly after the fire and 20 years later. Again, dose mattered and early effects largely dissi- pated over the long term. This classic study also found that separation of children from caregivers was a critical predictor of how fire-exposed children fared, and proximity of attachment figures during life-threatening adversities had protective effects, as observed during WWII.
In 1987, Michael Rutter published a landmark paper, still the most cited journal article on psycho- social resilience in the literature, that summed up much of the first-generation research, delineated key issues, and set the stage for ensuing waves of resilience science (Masten, 2012; Rutter, 1987). Rutter described resilience in terms of processes and turning points, provided many examples of interac- tion effects, and noted evidence of “steeling effects,” where engagement with stress served to prepare the individual for better subsequent adaptation.
Accomplishments and Critiques of Early Resilience Science
Rutter’s classic article and other early reviews docu- mented the accomplishments of the first wave of resilience science, including models, methods, and a body of findings (e.g., Garmezy, 1985; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). Despite notable consistencies in the findings, shortcomings in the evidence base became evident and controversies began emerging.
Models and Methods
Early investigators established models and meth- ods for research on resilience that continue to be useful, although refinements inevitably were needed, particularly with respect to cultural and contextual issues. Resilience research requires strate- gies for assessing risk or adversity, adaptation, and other influences that might explain variations in adaptation among children at risk, and statistical methods for testing models or hypotheses about the interplay among these possible contributors to resil- ience. Investigators soon recognized that single risk indicators did not reflect the reality of adversity exposure in children, who were often exposed to multiple risk factors or adversities. Various mea- sures were designed to index cumulative risk or
adversity exposure (see Evans et al., 2013; Obrad- ovi�c, Shaffer, & Masten, 2012). In disaster studies, for example, exposure to death and destruction might be indexed by proximity to the epicenter of devastation or by counts of traumatic experiences.
Various approaches were taken to defining adap- tation as well. In some studies, adjustment was defined by the absence of psychopathology or other expected negative outcomes that defined the risk group of interest. In other cases, adaptation was evaluated on the basis of positive achievements in age-salient developmental tasks, the psychosocial or physical milestones and accomplishments expected for individuals in a given period of development in a given sociocultural context (McCormick, Kuo, & Masten, 2011). Some of these tasks were viewed as universal, such as learning to walk or talk; others were common across developed nations, such as learning to read; still others were more specific to a culture or context, such as learning to weave tex- tiles, fish, or master sacred texts.
Early models included linear and nonlinear effects linking adversity to adaptation (e.g., Masten et al., 1988). Nonlinear effects included exponential increases in problematic outcomes as risk or adver- sity levels increased or curvilinear effects where adaptation improved at lower levels of challenge and then fell at higher levels (“the challenge model”), analogous to the Yerkes-Dodson inverted- U relation of performance to arousal. Additional positive explanatory factors or influences were added to these models to explain positive outcomes. When they had the same effects across levels of risk (a main effect in statistical models), they were conceptualized as assets, resources, or compensatory factors (later termed “promotive fac- tors” by Sameroff, 2000). When there was an added or special effect when risk or adversity was high, they were described as “protective factors” that moderated risk effects (interaction effects).
Investigators developed two basic approaches to identifying and testing the resources and protective factors associated with resilience: person focused and variable focused (Masten, 2001). The former included case studies and research on groups of individuals who met specified criteria for both risk and good adaptation, typically to compare them with other groups of people who shared the same level of risk but were maladaptive, and sometimes also to others who shared the same positive out- comes but had lower risk. Variable-focused approaches typically used multivariate statistics, such as hierarchical regressions, to test main effects and moderators.
Early Findings and Critiques
Early findings indicated key differences associ- ated with good adaptation compared to maladapta- tion among high-risk groups of children. There was enough consistency that early reviewers (e.g., Gar- mezy, 1985) could summarize them in terms of child attributes (individual differences), family attri- butes (e.g., socioeconomic variation, parenting), and extrafamilial differences (e.g., neighborhood, school, mentors outside the family). Complexities emerged as well, including data congruent with Rutter’s (1987) admonition that protective effects had to be considered in terms of function and context, and not as inherent to the “protective factor” itself. One example heralding the importance of context was a study of temperament by deVries (1984) that Rutter (1989) used to illustrate this issue. At that time, developmental scientists tended to assume (as implied by the labels) that “easy” babies who had more mellow temperaments were more adaptive than “difficult” or “fussy” babies viewed as more challenging and demanding. In the deVries study, temperament was measured in Masai infants using a measure originally developed for North American children. After a severe drought, the investigator found, to his surprise, that difficult infants survived the harsh conditions better than easy babies. Masai culture may have played a part in these results, with multiple family members in caregiver roles, feeding offered on demand, and a high value on assertiveness.
Some reviewers emphasized that context was important (e.g., Masten et al., 1990; Rutter, 1990), yet on the whole the early resilience literature did not address context well nor consider important cultural variations in the meaning and measure- ment of resilience and culturally based protective influences. Criteria for judging good adaptation or success in developmental tasks were clearly cultur- ally based, yet rarely examined in this light, even though scholars called for a more sociocultural approach (e.g., Oerter, 1986; Ogbu, 1981). Resilience studies were criticized for neglecting context in models and methods, and especially for the lack of research on culturally based protective factors (e.g., Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten, 1999).
The Maturing of Resilience Science
In the quarter-century that followed the first wave of science and attendant reviews, human resilience science expanded and matured, becoming more
global and multidisciplinary in scope. Advances in the measurement of genes and biological processes gave a boost to research on the neurobiology of resilience. Models, methods, and findings became more dynamic and more nuanced. Processes involv- ing multiple levels of analysis took center stage. And finally, as international and multicultural research gained traction, global perspectives on resilience emerged and stimulated refinement of methods and theory. Key changes are highlighted here.
Complex Adaptive Systems
Over the decades since the science on resilience in children began, the conceptualization of the con- struct grew more dynamic (Masten, 2013; Schoon, 2012), reflecting a broader systems transformation in developmental science (e.g., Lerner et al., 2012; Zelazo, 2013). This relational developmental sys- tems framework (Overton, 2013) integrated ideas from developmental systems theory (Lerner, 2006), ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Mor- ris, 2006), family systems theory (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2013), biological systems (Lickliter, 2013), and developmental psychopathology (Cicch- etti, 2013a). Contemporary systems models assume that many systems interact or “co-act” to shape the course of development, across levels of function, from the molecular to the macro-levels of physical and sociocultural ecologies. The resilience of an individual over the course of development depends on the function of complex adaptive systems that are continually interacting and transforming. As a result, the resilience of a person is always changing and the capacity for adaptation of an individual will be distributed across interacting systems.
I have previously suggested that many of the widely observed protective factors for individual resilience in children reflect adaptive systems shaped by biological and cultural evolution (Masten, 2001, 2007). These include close attach- ment relationships, reward systems and mastery motivation, intelligence and executive functions, and cultural belief systems and traditions in many forms, including religion. Each of these adaptive systems can be considered at various levels of analysis from multiple disciplinary perspectives, including anthropology, biology, ecology, econom- ics, psychology, and sociology.
Multilevel dynamics (processes linking levels of function within and across systems) hold consider- able interest in resilience theory. For example, there is great interest in processes by which adversity is
Global Perspectives on Resilience 9
biologically embedded and mitigated (e.g., Karato- reos & McEwen, 2013), violence at the community level influences family function and thereby cas- cades to affect children (e.g., Cummings et al., 2012), or good parenting influences the develop- ment of executive function skills in children at the neural and behavioral levels (e.g., Blair, Berry, Mills-Koonce, & Granger, 2013). Disasters under- score the interdependence of individual, family, and community systems, as well as biological, physical, and ecological systems across levels (Masten & Narayan, 2012). Large-scale disasters like Katrina or the 2011 tsunami in Japan challenge or destroy many adaptive systems simultaneously across large areas and groups of people. Conse- quently, recovery can take some time, and adequate preparation for disasters usually requires an inte- grated perspective with consideration of multiple, interdependent systems.
Trajectories and Pathways
Modeling dynamic change in complex systems is a challenge across many fields of research, and resilience science is no exception. Conceptually, these models and ideas are not new; Gottesman illustrated such models decades ago (e.g., Gottes- man, 1974) and they have been important in the history of developmental psychopathology (e.g., Cicchetti, 2013a; Masten, 2006). However, progress in statistical methodology for modeling change within individuals over time and between-person differences in within-person change have opened new possibilities for studying pathways and trajec- tories in developmental science (Grimm, Ram, & Hamagami, 2011). Statistical and computing advances, in combination with repeated measures in longitudinal studies, have made it possible to begin testing pathway models and illustrating real trajectories of behavior over time in the context of acute or chronic adversities.
Theoretical pathway models of resilience in the context of acute and chronic adversity have been presented by a number of scholars in the resilience field (e.g., Masten & Narayan, 2012). These models illustrate different patterns of adaptive behavior over time in relation to onset of a traumatic experi- ence or change in adversity level, often illustrating stress-resistance, a pattern with little or minor dis- turbance of function in response to an adverse experience (Bonanno & Diminich, 2013, term this pattern “minimal-impact resilience”), breakdown and recovery of function in response to a sudden overwhelming stressor (sometimes called a “recov-
ery” pattern), and posttraumatic growth or improvement in function in response to adversity. In the case of chronic adversity, such as might occur with institutional rearing or child maltreat- ment, another pattern has been delineated, where function is poor or declining and then turns around when conditions improve, a pattern vari- ously referred to as “normalization” (Masten & Obradovi�c, 2008) or “emergent resilience” (Bonanno & Diminich, 2013). Some scholars also include the maladaptive patterns in their pathway figures, where breakdown or decreases in function occur in the aftermath of adversity followed by little or no recovery.
Growth curve modeling and group-based trajec- tory modeling techniques (Grimm et al., 2011; Nagin, 2005) have made it possible to study pat- terns of change over time in individuals and test for hypothesized response patterns. Longitudinal studies with repeated measures are rare; however, there are some recent examples of research on tra- jectories in children. Betancourt, McBain, Newn- ham, and Brennan (2013), using latent class growth curve analysis, identified four trajectories of inter- nalizing symptoms over time in a sample of child soldiers and other youth from Sierra Leone with extremely high trauma exposure: a stress-resistance (minimal-impact resilience) pattern with steady, low internalizing symptoms (41% showed this pat- tern), a recovery pattern with substantial improve- ment over time in symptoms (47%; presoldier measures were not available), persisting symptoms (5%), and a deteriorating pattern of worsening symptoms (6%). Another study of trajectories uti- lized data from a study of 568 children followed after Hurricane Andrew (La Greca et al., 2013) and latent growth mixture modeling to identify three trajectories based on measures at 3, 7, and 10 months posthurricane: (minimal-impact) resilient (37%), recovering (43%), and persistently distressed (20%). Both these studies offer support for several predicted trajectories, including resilience pathways and persisting effects, while also corroborating the observation that the majority of children, even after severe acute or chronic adversities, show resilience in some form.
The Neurobiology of Resilience
Research on the neurobiology of resilience has surged with advances in methodology that make it possible to measure genes and epigenetic change, examine the status of stress-response systems and immune system function, and see the brain in
action through various imaging techniques (Cicch- etti, 2013a, 2013b; Hughes, 2012; Karatoreos & McEwen, 2013; Kim-Cohen & Turkewitz, 2012; Masten, 2013; Russo, Murrough, Han, Charney, & Nestler, 2012). Some of these techniques can only be utilized in the context of laboratories; however, some are “field friendly,” making it possible to assess biomarkers of stress or adaptation processes in authentic ecological settings and even in the midst of disaster recovery experiences. DNA, sali- vary cortisol, and blood spots, for example, have been collected in remote and high-stress contexts, including trailer parks set up after Hurricane Katrina (e.g., Vigil, Geary, Granger, & Flinn, 2010), homeless shelters (e.g., Cutuli, Wiik, Herbers, Gunnar, & Masten, 2010), foster homes (e.g., Fisher, Van Ryzin, & Gunnar, 2011), treatment centers for maltreated children and their families (e.g., Cicchetti, 2013a, 2013b), home visits with low-income and rural families (e.g., Blair et al., 2013), and field sites around the world in which anthropologists are including biomarker assessments along with their more traditional measures (McDade, Williams, & Snodgrass, 2007; Worthman & Costello, 2009; Worthman & Panter-Brick, 2008).
Research conducted with diverse samples of chil- dren from developing and developed nations plays an important role in the neurobiological wave of research on risk and resilience. For example, cortisol from hair sampling has been examined in girls with various levels of exposure to the 2008 devastating Wenchuan earthquake in China (Luo et al., 2012). Cortisol measured from hair samples is a potential biomarker that provides a “timeline” of stress responses embedded in the hair as it grows. Results show exposure effects, with cortisol levels elevated in girls who were more exposed. In addition, girls with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) showed different patterns and lower cortisol than exposed girls who did not have PTSD.
Research on cortisol using various assessment methodologies in diverse contexts of adversity has yielded a complex picture of how the stress regula- tion systems may be affected by trauma experiences over the life course and over generations (Gunnar & Herrera, 2013; Matthews & Phillips, 2012). For reasons not yet clear, either elevated or reduced cortisol levels or reactivity can be found after adversity. Exposure timing may play a role, and there is considerable interest in prenatal program- ming effects, presumably epigenetically mediated, in response to trauma exposure of mothers. Yehuda and colleagues, for example, have studied cortisol in the children of survivors of the Holocaust and
9/11, observing lower cortisol levels among moth- ers who developed PTSD and their offspring (see Yehuda et al., 2010). Greater effects were found with 9/11 exposure in the third trimester.
There is growing international interest in timing effects of physical and psychological stressors on human development. Some of this research stems from WWII, including the studies of radiation expo- sure on children after the atomic bombing of Japan and the “Dutch Famine” studies. Research on radia- tion exposures in children after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and more recently from the radiation leaks after the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear plant shows clear timing effects (Fushiki, 2013); worse effects are observed with fetal expo- sure during organogenesis, and the central nervous system is particularly sensitive during weeks 8–25. Similarly, studies of children who experienced the famine during the occupation of the Netherlands in the winter of 1944–1945 also show differential tim- ing effects on the life-l
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Why Hire Safehomework.com writers to do your paper?