International Journal of
Library and Information Science

  • Abbreviation: Int. J. Lib. Inf. Sci.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 2141-2537
  • DOI: 10.5897/IJLIS
  • Start Year: 2009
  • Published Articles: 240

Full Length Research Paper

An appraisal of the impact of grant-in-aids (Tetfund) and donations in sustaining academic library services in Nigeria: The cross river state experience

Godwin, B. Afebende
  • Godwin, B. Afebende
  • Department of Library and Information Science, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 01 April 2017
  •  Accepted: 13 July 2017
  •  Published: 30 September 2017

 ABSTRACT

The study surveyed the impact of grant-in-aids Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) and donations/gifts as alternative sources of funding to support academic libraries in Cross River State, Nigeria. The survey design method was used to carry out the study. A modified six-point Likert-type scale questionnaire was designed to measure responses on sources of library funding and support through grant-in-aids (TETFUND) and donations/gifts from the institutions studies. The vetted instrument was administered on 30 senior management librarians from five (5) academic institutions in the state. The internal consistency of the instrument laid in the range (0.729<Yxx<893) with across the time stability in the range (0.706<Ytt<0.796) measured via Cronbach alpha and test-retest reliability respectively. The study found that grand-in-aids and donations/gifts have been playing vital supportive role in the funding of academic libraries. However, librarians on their part were not exploiting this avenue enough in their collection development strives. The author recommends that more efforts in this direction should be explored by librarians and that training on grant proposal writing for them should be provided to encourage, strengthen and equip them with skills to more seriously pursue these options.

Key words: Funding, library resources, academic libraries, grant-in-aids (TETFUND), donations/gifts.


 INTRODUCTION

Oyegunle (2013) defines academic library as a library that is attached to academic institutions above the secondary school level, serving the teaching and research needs of students and staff which serve two complementary purposes to support the school curriculum and to support the research of the university faculty and students. As Otubelu (2010) observes, academic libraries in tertiary institutions occupy position as the hub of all academic activities and such libraries have always emerge almost simultaneously with the Libraries provide useful services to the user community by selecting, acquiring and organizing information sources which support the overall vision and mission of their parent institution. The development of an academic parent institutions library collection is not just the duty of the librarian but a cooperative effort between librarians, the teaching faculty and students. The philosophy of an academic library focuses on providing active learning spaces and diverse services to meet the various needs of the students, faculty staff and entire parent institution (Oyegunle, 2013). A deficient collection can have adverse implication for the institution. It is imperative that libraries should be developed to meet the aspirations of patrons. Achieving, this is becoming herculean.

Funding has always been very great challenge to libraries. Libraries cannot on their own generate enough funds adequate to run their services. They depend on funds allocated from their parents’ institution and these funds are almost always inadequate to meet library needs.

Impediments to library (circulation) services to the increase in information needs of users, and (cost of information resources) without a corresponding increase or provision of modern facilities. Lack of sufficient funds to build, procure and maintain basic infrastructure and equipment is real. Other challenges in recent times include digitalization of collections, electronic access, competition from online search engines, information literacy, value added services for ‘new students and faculty and the education and skills needed by today’s libraries to address these issues (Oyegunle, 2013).

In the face of continued budget cuts and reduced allocation from governments and proprietary authorities to libraries, many self-help options have been contemplated. While Lawal (2002) opines “partial recovery of academic cost”, the process whereby the sources of the students, Popoola (2005) suggests that managers of information systems should embark on priced based information services which will enable them to recover their cost. He reiterated that libraries must be capable of generating revenue of possible making maximum profit using appropriate pricing policy and concluded that any good and service that is provided free is never valued.

The success of the implementation of this option has in our libraries has not been reported in the literature apart from moderate charges on photocopying, bindery services and library services fees paid in some institution. Another significant areas where libraries have also generated support for services from special grant-in-aids are donations/gifts from organizations, friends of the library fund raising campaigning and alumni support. An attempt is being made here to appraise the level to which grant-in-aids and donation and gifts are playing to support library funding and services in Cross River State, Nigeria.

Statement of the problem

As earlier emphasised, funding is very critical to the sentence of services provided in academic libraries. The down-turn in the economy, resulting in continuous cuts in library budgets and worsened by inflation and in rising cost information resources has aggravated library funding challenges. Libraries are increasingly finding it difficult or unable to procure requisite materials nor sustain basic services required of them. Alternative sources of funding must out of necessity be sourced to assist in ameliorating or help solve the problem. This study seeks to appraise how grant-in-aids and donations/gifts are helping to fill this yawning gap in helping to bail libraries from funding challenges.

Objective of the study

The study was designed to investigate the extent to which academic libraries in Cross River State were using the options of Grant-in-Aids and donations/gifts to support the funding of their libraries and the extent to which they were satisfied with these options.

Research questions

1. To what extent are academic libraries using the options of grant-in-aids and donations/gifts to support their library funding and services?

2. How regular are the supports in form of grant-in-aids and donations/gifts to support library services?

3. What is the extent to which academic libraries are satisfied with these alternative sources of funding?

4. To what extent can academic libraries rely on these options as sources of funding?

Delimitation of the study

The study was delimited to public academic libraries in Cross River State, Nigeria. Five academic libraries were chosen in the study. Of these, two are federal government owned institutions, while three are state government owned. The University of Calabar, Calabar Library and the Federal College of Education, Obudu libraries are federal government owned while Cross River University of Technology (CRUTECH), Calabar Library, the College of Health Technology, Calabar and Cross River State College of Education Libraries are state owned. These institutions background, nature of establishment, management and socio-political and economic climates in which they operate are similar to other states in the country. Also, both government policies and regulatory agencies governing the institutions are the same, thus making generalization from a given state to another or geopolitical regions in the country inevitable or justifiable. Librarians in charge and heads of libraries who are library management staff considered competent to provide relevant information were used to complete the questionnaire instrument designed for the study.


 LITERATURE REVIEW

Government funding/Parent institution

The main source of funding academic libraries in Nigeria in the public institutions is from government funds and grants. The funding model, formula or level is greatly dependent on whether the institution is private, state or federal government owned. In general, both states and federal government budgetary provisions/policies and funding allocations to higher education have overall influence on library financing and development.

Hisle (2002) observed that academic libraries in developing countries depend mainly on government funding and do not show any interest or experience in well organised fund raising programmes to generate the funds they require to sustain their services. He maintains that most institutions’ libraries lack flexible administrative systems and neither do they have clear responsibility for organising fundraising assigned for libraries or university (institutions) administrators. So, most often, they rely on whatever is appropriated to the libraries from their managements.

Commenting on the underfunding of the educational sector, Inoyo (2014) in his convocation lecture titled “challenges and opportunities for university graduates in a season of economic and moral decay” decried the poor level of funding education in Nigeria. As a country, he noted we are still far off the UNESCO given recommendation that 26% of a country’s total budget must be dedicated to education. He informed that in 2012, N400.15bn or 8.43%, 2013, N426.5bn or 8.7% and in 2014, N495.2bn or 9.9% out of the nation’s total budgets respectively was allocated to the education sector despite a quantum growth in our gross domestic product (GDP) over the period (67.7billion in 2003 to 522.6 in 2013) representing 672% growth by World Bank statistics.

Ibok (1996) noted that the concern for an effective and efficient management of academic libraries has in the past years been expressed in many countries, including Nigeria. Most of the issues raised border on inadequate funding, the effect of inflation on library finances, poor accountability, unsatisfactory investment decisions which fail to consider new developments in the approach to academic instruction and/or take advantage of development in information technologies and apparent lack of concern for the plight of the libraries by government and university authorities which fail to allocate adequate funds to their libraries among others.

According to Ogundipe (2008), on recommendation of the National Universities Commission (NUC), ten percent (10%) of each university’s recurrent budget is supposed to be allocated to the library. Ironically, he decries that the recommendation is never complied with for two obvious reasons. Firstly, that it is difficult to predict what grants eventually come from government to universities through NUC and secondly too that whatever comes from the institutions’ budget is dependent on not what the libraries request but on what is allocated to her after other competing demands for scarce resources in the institution. In practice, libraries most often receive less than their budgetary provision due to irregular grants from government or arbitrary cuts or withholding of funds by administrative fait to meet contending exigencies.

As a consequence of the aforementioned, Edoka (2001) pointed out that budgets of university libraries are negotiated with its parent institutions not based on operational cost, required information resources and services but on whatever the library is made to do with. Lawal (2002) remarked and rightly pointed out that the freedom of universities to allocate financial resources on the bases of internally established priorities does not augur well for libraries. He further maintains that due to competitive demands on limited budgets from faculties and departments, there is the temptation to lose sight of the library’s role and arbitrarily cut her budget. The tendency to undermine the critical role libraries play in institutions through budgetary cuts borrowing or vive of library funds/allocations when the funds have not been accessed is not uncommon in academic libraries.

It is important and cautionary to note as Hiscock (1986) maintains that in order to justify its existence, the academic library needs to demonstrate a positive link between its use and the educational performance of undergraduates. Powell (1992) argued that libraries need to account for their costs because of keen competition from various departments for limited financial resources of the parent institution noting that to justify their existence, libraries need to be able to demonstrate that their resources and services are making a significant contribution to the education and research of their clienteles.

Thus in evaluating and assessing libraries, Pritchard (1996) suggests that the library should move beyond inputs (for example, budgets, number of volumes in the collection) and instead focus on the performance measures associated with academic library’s impact on undergraduates’ educational outcomes. To attract and sustain funding libraries must therefore strive to show and demonstrate their relevance to their institutions.

Studies and surveys by scholars have revealed that libraries in Nigeria are operating in a resource constrained environment. According to Aguolu and Aguolu (2002), libraries in Nigeria do not only lack adequate funds to purchase books and required journals but that they cannot afford huge amount needed to purchase and maintain computers hardware, build and sustain infrastructure nor hire and keep requisite personnel. Ajibero (2003) and Madu (2008) citing Sofoluwe (2003) and Ojedokun (2008) have all decried poor funding by government as a major hindrance to not only virtual/electronic library services but the entire academic library development in Nigeria. Further commenting, Aguolu (2013) outlined the following additional challenges for resources/collection development in Nigeria university libraries:

1. Inadequate budgetary allocation to libraries which limit their effort to acquire necessary materials.

2. The ever increasing cost of books and journals worldwide due to general inflation and

3. Delays in payment for materials ordered due to procedures involved in processing invoices for payment since most materials are imported and required sourcing for scarce foreign exchange/currency.

Given this scenario, alternative or supplementary source must be sought rather than depending on government alone.

Donations and gifts

These are funds received from private foundations, government sponsored organisations, individuals, group or institutions in support of a worthy project or cause. These monies or grants sometimes do not come as windfalls. Recipients who are informed about their existence, and are needy write proposals to the grantors or donors/agencies to compete for the funds.

In general, the overriding principles behind these donations is the vision that all people especially the developing countries of Africa and the third world should have access to and contribute information, ideas, and knowledge necessary to improve and drive sustainable and equitable development.

In this light, the British Medical Association (BMA) and British Medical Journal (BMJ) set up a small fund to respond to request for health information from organisations in developing countries and other areas of need. The fund considers applications from medical schools, medical libraries and healthcare institutions. In the same lights, Book Aid International based in United Kingdom is a major supporter for libraries in sub-Saharan African. Book Aid International works with partners that give wide possible access to books and information to non-governmental organisations, universities, colleges, public libraries and schools.

Also, Books for Africa (BFA) founded in 1988, in USA is a non-profit organisation whose mission is to eliminate book famine in Africa. Ifidon (2006) reports that since it began operation, BFA has shipped over 7 million books to 22 African countries served by BFA of which Nigeria is a beneficiary. Others in this category and their affiliation include Brother’s Brother Foundation (BBF) established in 1987, USA, Netherlands Periodical Project (NPP) and Ontario College of Family Physician, Canada. Many academic libraries benefited from these facilities in the past and there still exist opportunities for their exploitation and use. As Igbo and Dike (2006) report efforts from World Bank between 1990 to 1996 and Federal Government European Union (EU) Project for State library development intervention had sufficed.

On their path, Olanlokun and Adekanye (2005) acknowledged donations of relevant and useful materials received from several individual and organizations both solicited and unsolicited for over a period of 23 years to the University of Lagos. A list of some of the donors agencies include the British Council, Ford Foundation USA, Carnegie Corporation, UNICEF, World Bank, National Population Commission of Nigeria, Council for the Development of Social Commission of Nigeria Council for the Develop of Social Research in Africa and Rotary Club of Victoria Island, Lagos among others some of these gifts they note were facilitated by teaching staff who interacted with their foreign colleagues and others who persuaded them to donate books and materials to the library.

Grant-In-Aids (TETfund)

Reitz (2004) define these as funds received by a library or library system from a State or Federal Government agency in support of regular operations, or a special project or program, as opposed to funds derived from the community or district served.

In the time past, States and Federal Government have approved special grants to libraries of new institutions for the development of their stock especially in the beginning years. At other times, under due pressures from academic staff unions, government is forced to sign agreements for the capital provision for the upgrading of basic infrastructure/facilities like laboratories, workshops and libraries.

However, most of the pact signed are honoured more in the breach than being implemented.

Currently, the most practicable and substantial support enjoyed by academic libraries is under the former Education Tax Fund (ETF) now restricted to fund tertiary education alone called Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND). TETFund was established by Act No.7 of 1993 as amended because education was stabbed of funds and infrastructure and had deteriorated badly in all educational institutions.

In 2011, Act No.7 was repealed and substituted with Act No.16 which created TETFund and was refocused to intervene only in Public Tertiary Institutions which Section 20 of the Act defines as “a University, a Polytechnic or a College of Education”. The specific mandate of the fund as provided in Section 7(i) of the Act No.16 as it pertain to the libraries is to disburse the amount in the fund to Federal and State tertiary educational institutions specifically for the provision or maintenance of:

1. Library buildings

2. Library books

3. Library journals and

4. e-library services

It is very important to commend TETfunds role in her interventions especially in e-library services development as Ya’u (2003) stress that digital libraries has the opportunity to address the scarcity of teaching and research materials in the libraries of institution of higher education in Nigeria.

In specific terms, Jaji (2006) stated that TETfund over the years has supported the building of e-libraries or cybercafés in fifty (50) universities four (4) inter-university centres, forty-six (46) polytechnics, sixty (60) monotynics and sixty-one (61) colleges of education in the country. In Cross River State, of the five tertiary institutions in the state, all but one which of the state college of Health Technology have benefited from TETfund intervention in e-library development.

Okiy (2006) applauded TETfunds timely intervention through funding for adopting and renovating library environment to not only accommodate e-library facilities and resources but also through workshops organized set sponsored by it acro9ss the six geo-political zone to ensure adequate service provision by staff to user. She also noted that through her international agencies like Ford Foundation, British Council, CIDA, UNESCO, UNICEF etc are contributing in ICTs development in Nigeria by accelerating access to computers, connectivity and localised internet content.

TETfund (2014) reported that between 2001 to 2013, it had allocated twenty-three billion, eight hundred and forty-two million, seven hundred and ninety-one thousand, one hundred and seventy-six naira, fifty-seven kobo (N23,842,791,176.57k) for library development in public tertiary institutions. Out of this sum, a total of nine billion, six hundred and thirty-seven million, two hundred and ninety-six thousand, five hundred and eighty-nine naira, fifty-one kobo (N9,637,296,589.51k) had been accessed as at August 2014 leaving a balance of Fourteen billion, two hundred and five million, four hundred and ninety-four thousand, five hundred and eighty-seven naira, six kobo (N14,205,494,587.06k) to be accessed. The allocation is presented in Table 1. TETfund has continued to play very vital role in the development and sustenance of library services through her intervention funds for information resources, equipment and infrastructure. Agbedo (2015) in the Guardian Newspaper features article reported that TETfund under the leadership of Prof. Bogoro was not only working but was bridging the gap between industry and classroom by funding and sustaining materials and infrastructure for teaching and learning. It credited all basic infrastructure fund in tertiary institutions to TETfund, including libraries. Adamu (2017) reported that although TETFUND “Special Intervention” has been removed from 2017 budget due to the current economic crunch in the country, its annual interventions have remained sustained.

 

 

Guidelines for accessing the fund are usually spelt out in the letters of award to beneficiary libraries. These involve a written proposal of what the institution intends to use the find for, accompanied by a performance invoice or invoices for items for purchase and bill of quantities for construction jobs. From the table above, it is evident that none of the institutions have been able to access or fully utilize funds allocated to them. Only about 30.06% of universities, 37.6% of the polytechnics and 54.08% of colleges of education fund have been utilized. This puts a question mark on the capacities and seriousness of librarians in charge to access these library funds given their precarious funding environment.

Other additional conditions required before libraries could access the funds noted by Adamu (2017) include (1) Libraries must produce evidence of properly constituted library development committees of their institutions, (2) submit library development policy and guide in line with TETfund template and (3) submit list of resources, tools and equip to be procured among other requirements. TETFunds complain of major constraints to accessing these funds from beneficiaries’ libraries to include amongst others the following:

1. Piece Meal submission to TETFund by beneficiary libraries.

2. Poor packaging and non-compliance with TETFund implementation guidelines even after discussions and consensus at annual strategic meetings and

3. Constant request for substitution of approved items after disbursement of funds.

Bamigboye et al. (2015) carried out a survey on the funding of academic libraries in Nigeria through TETFund intervention grants. They observed that the funds were regular and that all the federal and state government owned institutions benefited from the grants.

Despite the obvious benefits of the fund, the study also found that libraries faced a lot of problems in accessing the funds. They reported that there were delays in inspection and approval of completed projects to enable libraries access new interventions. The result of the aforementioned is that many libraries are often in arrears of several years of fund allocated but not accessed or used. According to this study, TETFund puts the blame on libraries for the following reasons:

1. Delays in the submission of projects for reconciliation and approval by institutions

2. Non-completion of ongoing projects which do not allow such institutions to access the succeeding year’s project or intervention and

3. Insufficient documentation to substantiate proposed projects as well as completed ones in line with TETFund’s guideline and template.

Surely a more purposeful and sustained effort need to be made on the part of libraries to jump at such opportunities as provided by TETFund to make a change to their libraries. Libraries cannot cry wolf of underfunding when opportunities for available funds cannot be utilized. The implication from the above is that the complain of some heads of libraries of inadequate funding is not far from their lack of capacity and initiative to access and utilize fund even if they are available.


 METHODOLOGY

A 21-item questionnaire called funding Nigeria academic libraries through grants-in-aids, and donated and gifts source was developed for this study. The questionnaire was divided into two (2) sections (A and B). Section A was designed to collect demographic data of respondents while section B built on a six-point Likert scale and divided into two parts was designed to measure sources of library funds variables of the parent institutions and internally generated revenue respectively.

Each section of part B of the questionnaire consisted of seven (7) items. The items were vetted by faro measurement experts from University of Calabar and Cross River University of Technology, Calabar. The vetted instrument was pilot tested by administering it on a sample of twenty (20) senior library staff. The internal consistency of the two parts lied in the range (729 < rtt < .893) with across time stability in the range (.706 < rtt .796) measured via Cronbach alpha and test-retest reliability respectively. The demographic description of the study sample is given in Table 1.

From Table 2, it can be seen that there were five (5) institution involved, with six (6) respondents from each academic library. Of this number, twenty-one (21) representing 70% were males while nine (9) representing 30% of the samples were females. In terms of rank, there were five (5) university/college librarians’ three (3) Deputy/Chief librarians, eight (8) Senior/Assistant Chief Librarians, seven (7) each of librarian I and II of principal and senior librarian. Five (16.7%) each came from acquisition/resource development unit, five (16.7%) from processing, six (20.0%) from reader Five (16.7%) each came from acquisition/resource development unit, five (16.7%) from processing, six (20.0%) from reader services/ circulation, five (16.7%) from reference, five (16.7%) from serials/ periodicals and four (13.3%) from Bindery/Reprography units.

 

 

In terms of their educational qualification, 17 (56.7%) had bachelor’s degree six (20.0%) master’s degree and seven (23.3%) doctorate degrees. None of the respondents was single and none was separated. There were 28 (93.3%) married persons, one (3.3%) divorced and one (3.3%) widowed.

In terms of their years of working experience, none had worked for less than 5 years, one (3.3%) between 5 and 9 years, 7 (23.3%) between 10 and 14 years, 11 (36.7%) between 15 and 19 years, 10 (33.3%) between 20 and 24 years and one (3.3%) between 25 and 29 years. None had worked for more than 30 years. Thus, the sample was considered heterogeneous enough for an inferential study of this nature.


 RESULTS

For each variable built on the six-point Likert scale, frequency of responses and their percentage were weighted such that a response of strongly agree (SA) was awarded 6 points, agreed (A), 5 points, tend to agree (TA) 4 points, tend to disagree (TD) 3 points, disagree (d) 3 points and strongly disagree (SD) one (1) point; if item is positively worded. The scoring was reversed of the item was negatively worded. The weighted score were then added for each section. The resulting data were analysed using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 18.0. simple frequency counts, percentages, descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation etc.) The frequency analysis of response to items on parent institution was done using frequency counts and simple percentages. The result is presented in Table 2.

From Table 3, there was about an even split in the opinion of the respondents on whether donations and gifts form a substantial source of their library funds while 46.7% agreed with the statement, 53.3% (higher) disagreed, there was no “strongly agreed” response just as there was no “strongly disagreed” response. About 56.6% disagreed with the statement that they have been receiving regular donations and gifts for their libraries in the past five years while 43.4% agreed.

 

 

To the issue of relying on donation funds, 90% of them said they cannot while only 10% said they could do that they also almost completely disagree (73.4%) with the statement that they have had regular donations/gifts for their libraries in the past five years. When the issue sufficiency of donations and gifts in sustaining library services was put to them, all of them disagreed.

About 80% of the respondents disagreed with the statement that they have never received donations or gifts for the functioning of their library while 20% of them agreed. About 70% of them agreed that relying on donation and gifts for the proper functioning of their libraries, will be very disastrous. From Table 4, 80% the respondents disagreed with the statement that their library had not received any grants- in-aid for the past five years but 20% agreed. There was about an even split on the issue of satisfaction with the grants-in-aid received, as 56.7% agreed while 43.3% disagreed. About 76.7% of the respondents agreed that grants-in-aid have contributed significantly to their funds while 23.3% disagreed.

 

 

However, 63.3% of them agreed that the grants-in-aid they have received cannot sustain their library materials and services while 36.7% disagreed. On regularity, about 60% agreed that grants-in-aid to their library has been regular while 40% disagreed. To the item “we can rely on grants-in-aid as a source of our library funds” 56.7% agreed while 43.3% disagreed. On the whole 73.3% agreed that if not grants-in-aid their library services would have crumbled while 26.7% disagreed with the statement. Responses to items on internally generated revenue as a source of library funds were analysed equally.

Observations

1. There is a general agreement from the respondents that grants from the government are the major source of financing academic libraries in public institution.

2. For now grants-in aid principally from TETFUND constitute the major source of funding academic libraries of beneficiary institutions. The fund accounts for about 70.6% of finances accruing to these libraries.

3. Also, gifts and donations are making some impact through their contributions to library development in these institutions.

4. It can also be observed from the study that parent institutions are not doing enough by allocating or making adequate budgetary provision for library services. From the study, the predictory variable on the major source of financing libraries shows that grant-in-aid’s (TETfund) scored high, followed by donations and gifts.


 DISCUSSION

In general, various creative sources of generating alternative finances to run library services have been advanced by scholars and other professionals in the field. Income generation must not necessarily be limited to allocations from government library development fees and other sundry charges only.

Support in terms of grant-in-aids and support in terms of materials/equipment also play a very ameliorating role in supporting library services. Ultimately, funds donated in physical cash if not used to pay for sponsorship and training of personnel is used to acquire textbooks, journals, other reference materials or building facilities, equipment all subscription to online/e-resources needed in these libraries.

From this study, result from Table 3 reveal that a majority of 80% disagreed with the statement that their libraries had not received any grant-in-aid to their libraries from TETFUND for the nest 5 years. It is not surprising, that 20% of the respondent disagreed with the statement. These respondents are most likely to come from the College of Health Technology, Calabar which does not fall within the mandate of TETFUND qualified to earn grants from it. Also from the study, 76.7% of the respondents agreed that grant-in-aids from TETFUND have significantly contributed to the finding of their libraries.

This result is in tandem with Okiy (2006) and Otubelu (2010) who acknowledged and applauded TETFUND for timely intervention through funding to renovate, upgrade and develop beneficiary libraries especially in the area of e-library and Information and Communication Technology Equipment (ICTs) for improvement in teaching and learning.

Still on TETFUND support to libraries, 60% of the respondents agreed that funds from TETFUND have been regular in the past five (5) years while 40% disagreed. On whether funds from TETFUND are enough to sustain the entire library services, 56.7% disagreed while 43.3% disagreed. On the whole 73.3% agreed that but not for grant-in-aid from TETFUND the services of their libraries would have been playing given the precarious state of libraries diminished funding. The above can possibly justify the claim by TETFUND (2014) that between 2001 to 2013, it had allocated and disbursed twenty-three billion, eight hundred and forty-four million seven hundred and ninety-one thousand, one hundred and seventy-six naira, fifty-seven kobo (N23,842,791,176.57k).

From the study, it has been discovered that other sources of income and donations/gifts can as well assist in supporting library finances and services. On donations and gifts to these libraries, 80% of the respondents disagreed with the statement that they have never received donations or gifts within the period under study. There was however a split in opinion of the respondents to the question of whether donations and gifts form a substantial source of their library funds and support. While 46.7% agreed with the statement 53.3% disagreed. There was no strongly agreed or strongly disagreed response. Clearly these responses are an indication that these libraries are benefiting in some form from donations and gifts as affirmed by Olanlokun and Adekanye (2005) who acknowledged significant contribution by ways of donations and gifts to the University of Lagos by sprinted individuals and organizations.

Adeyonoye (2011) also in his assessment of the impact of Nigeria’s Book Foundation (NBF) on the development of library collections in private universities in South-West Geographical Zone of Nigeria recognized the role contribution from such donations and sources can make by impacting positively on the development of book collections in beneficiary institutions.

Despite the aforementioned recognition of the role donations and gifts may offer to improve library resources, responses to the statement that these libraries can rely on donations and gifts for proper functioning was rejected by 70% of the respondents.

It is either obvious of what can be inferred from these statement is the fact that these libraries have no faith in gifts and donations as significant sources library support as 90% of them responded that they cannot rely on this option. It can also be translated to mean that librarians in these libraries are not putting enough efforts in attracting donations and gifts to the libraries on their efforts have not yielded needed rewards.

Whatever way, the implications are that librarians to seek alternative sources of looking for support to stem the shortfalls they receive from their parent institution. There is a need for training and retraining in proposal writing to attract grant-in-aids gifts from both internal, national and international donor agencies, organization and corporate bodies.


 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study underscores the need for librarians and their proprietary authorities to explore and vigorously explore all available avenues to source for funds and materials to acquire and maintain libraries and information services in order to attain their institutional goals and objectives of meeting the teaching, learning and research needs of her patrons.

Grants-in-aids from TETFUND and other donations and gifts have been considerably playing a vital role in sustaining public academic library services in the country. Libraries and librarians on their part have not demonstrated enough zeal and capacity to exploit alternative sources of generating revenue to complement grants from government, donor, agencies and parent institutions. Consequently, the following recommendations are being offered for improvement:

1. A clarion call is being made on government to place the financing of education and the funding and recognition of libraries as critical infrastructure in learning especially in academic institutions.

2. Edoka (2001), Ifidon (2006) and Ogundipe (2008) have all suggested that a new approach must be adopted through alternative sources of funding by libraries to stem the legion of library funding problems. It is recommended that academic libraries must also set targets to generate a certain percentage of her own income since income from parent institutions also are expected to be generated from internal sources. A permanent committee set up in the library charged with the sole responsibility of raising funds internally for the library is recommended.

3. The need to promote and publicise library services and as well as mobilize and seek support from interested public, development agencies and donor support group is highly advocated. Libraries need to take advantage of NGO’s and international organisations interested in library development in third countries to attract funds.

4. In order to justify and attract additional finances and support academic libraries must strive to measure their services and performance against their institutional objectives. They must justify their existence while ensuring that they are making a difference and adding value to their system.


 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The author has not declared any conflict of interests.



 REFERENCES

Adamu M (2017). "TETFund as vent for tertiary Institutions" Blueprint Magazine, March 31.

 

Adeyonoye JJ (2011). An assessment of the Impact of Nigerian Book Foundation (NBF) on the development of Library Collections in Private Universities in South-West Geopolitical Zone of Nigeria.

 
 

Aguolu IE (2013). Challenges and opportunities in management of collection development function: The university of Maiduguri library experience. Nigerian Libraries: J. Niger. Libr. Assoc. 46(1):101-108.

 
 

Aguolu CC, Aguolu IE (2002) Libraries and information management in Nigeria: Seminal essays on themes and problems. Nigeria, Maiduguri: ED-Linform Services.

 
 

Agbedo O (2015). "TETFund is Restoring Confidence in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions" Festures/Focus. The Guardian Jan. 15. 

View. Accessed 7/7/2017.

 
 

Ajibero MI (2003). "Current trends in technical services", the role of ICT. Proceedings of Selected Papers of the Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing Section of NLA. Lasisi, J., Odusanya, O.K., Sonaike, S.E.A., Okegbola, E.O., Balogun, F., & Osinulu, L.F. (Eds.) Nigeria: NLA Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing Section. pp.1-10.

 
 

Bamigboye OB, Okonedo S, Bakare OD, Nduka SC, Ajegbomogun FO (2015). Funding academic libraries in Nigeria: Case of Tertiary Education Trust Fund. 

 
 

Edoka BE (2001). Framework for sustainable university funding. Nigerian Libraries. J. Nigeria Lib. Assoc. 35(2):9-16.

 
 

Hiscock JE (1986). Does library usage affect academic performance? Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 17: 207-214.

 
 

Hisle WL (2002). Top issues facing academic libraries: A report of focus on the future task force. College and Research Libraries.63 (10). 

 
 

Ibok KU (1996). Management strategies for academic library finances in the 21st Century.Workshop in Strategic Management of University Libraries in the 21st Century. University of Abuja, Nigeria, March, 21-22.

 
 

Ifidon SE (2006). Modern Theory and Practice of Library Collection Development. Ekpoma, Nigeria: Department of Library and Information Science, Ambrose Ali University, Ekpoma.

 
 

Igbo HU, Dike CC (2006). Sources of fund and budgeting procedures in academic libraries: The Nigerian example. In Administration of academic libraries: A book of readings edited by F. C. Ekere. Onitsha: Palms Pubs & Links Coy.

 
 

Inoyo U (2014). Challenges and Opportunities for University Graduates in a season of economic and moral decay. 19th/20th Convocation lecture of University of Uyo, Nigeria.

 
 

Jaji MA (2006). The Education Crusader: ETF News - The House J. Educ. Trust Fund. 2(3):58.

 
 

Lawal OO (2002). The Library Profession in Nigeria. Calabar: Unical Press.

 
 

Madu EC (2008). Fundamentals of Modern Reference Services: Manual VS Electronic. Nigeria: Ibadan, Evi-Coleman.

 
 

Ogundipe OO (2008). The Librarianship of developing countries: The Librarianship of diminished resources. Lagos: Ikofa Press Ltd.

 
 

Okiy RB (2006). Quality assurances and the management of University library system: Committee of University Librarians in Nigeria

 
 

Universities (CULNU) National Workshop, 2006. Library Hitech News. 23(6):24-26.

 
 

Olanlokun O, Adekanye EA (2005). Collection development in an unstable economy: A case study of the University of Lagos Library. Afr. J. Lib. Archives Inf. Sci. 15(2):141-148.

 
 

Otubelu NJ (2010). Access to digital information in Nigerian Academic Libraries: The role of Education Trust Fund. Information Impact. J. Inf. Knowledge Manage. 1(2):50-54.

 
 

Oyegunle J (2013). Academic libraries in Nigeria. Library and Information Science Materials.

 
 

Popoola SO (2005). Library and Information Science Profession: The New Direction in the 21st Century in Nigeria (being a paper Presented at Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Nigerian Library Association (NLA) in Oshogbo. Osun State at the College of Health Science Auditorium, 30th Dec, 2003).

 
 

Powell RR (1992). Impact Assessment of University Libraries: A Consideration of Issues and Research Methodologies. Lib. Inf. Sci. Res.14:245-257.

 
 

Pritchard SM (1996). Determining quality in academic libraries. Library Trends. 44(3):572-594.

 
 

Reitz JM (2004). Dictionary for library and information science. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.

 
 

Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) (2014). Capacity Building Workshop paper on the acquisition and management of e-library for libraries in public tertiary institutions, 20th – 31st October.

 
 

Ya'u, Z (2003). Towards a virtual library for Nigeria.

 

 




          */?>