Effect of Poor Implementation of Collection Development Policy in Federal Polytechnic Library, Nasarawa State

This study examined the effect of poor implementation of collection development policy in federal polytechnic library, Nasarawa state in central northern zone of Nigeria. For research questions guided the study. A survey design was adopted in carrying out the study. The total population for this study was (32) thirty-two librarians. The major instrument for data collection was questionnaire. The entire population of (32) thirty-two was sampled with questionnaires and only (26) twenty-six were all returned. Data was analyzed using frequency tables, simple percentages and means scores. From the analysis, the findings revealed that collection development policy is available but encompasses only the area of acquisition. resistance to change, worn out materials, inadequate professionals/Librarians, lack of cooperation from parent organization, problem of storage facilities, lack of funds, lack of collection development policy and duplication of titles are some of the major problems encountered in developing library collections. Based on the research findings, it was recommended that libraries should have a written collection development policy that will embrace selection, acquisition, weeding, gifts and exchanges, there should be constant staff training/orientation, librarians should consult with user community in order to have first-hand needs of their information, employment of qualified librarians, provision of space to enable the library have archives where


Introduction
An academic library is that which is attached to an institution of learning, which its major function is research and advancement of knowledge in a wide variety of subjects (Alam, 2022).It main function is to serve as an auxiliary to the parent institution in carrying out its objectives.It can also be seen a central service or unit of operation set up to provide location, materials and facilities for study, teaching and research carried out in the institution.The Library is an important intellectual resource of the academic community, and helps them fulfill the curriculum requirements and to promote studies and research.The library caters for the information needs of the community, through the provision of reading materials for the various programmes of the institution (Horton, 2019).
According to (Shehu et al., 2022), the major obligation of the academic library with respect to its book selection and book collection is to provide the materials which will now and in the future best contribute to the fulfillment of these closely related functions of teaching, conservation and research.(Ajibola & Kolawole, 2021) opined that the academic library is the "heart" of the institution.He contends that what all academic libraries have in common, virtually regardless of country or history is their basic position, roles, aims and objectives.The reputation of libraries depends highly on the library facilities it offers its clientele in terms of information resources.As information and research resources become more varied, it places a challenge on academic libraries.(Barringer & Pryor, 2022) argued that the changes in the nature of information, in research strategies, and in the structure of higher education are affecting academic libraries.These changes define much of the shifting context within which academic libraries must operate.It is absolutely essential for a library to possess the resources that will enable it meet its goals.Beautiful buildings, well trained staff and modern information storage and retrieval system can only be appreciated if excellent services are given to users.These services cannot be given without a collection of information materials.The objective of any academic library is to support the teaching, learning and research activities of the parent institution.It is an objective which is achieved through a systematic acquisition and organization of all forms of recorded and undocumented information in all fields pertinent to the goals of the institution.This can be realized by making such information available to the members of the academic community and other scholars engaged in research and study (Nicolaidis et al., 2019).
Collection development is one of the fundamental functions of the library and information profession.(McKenzie et al., 2019) described it to include all planning for the systematic and rational building of a collection.In one sense, collection development includes assessing user needs, evaluating the present collection, determining selection policy, coordinating selection of items, re-evaluating and storing parts of the collection and planning for resources sharing.However, in a broader sense, collection development is not a single activity, or a group of activities; it is a planning and decision-making process.In order to play these vital roles effectively, academic libraries are supposed to be adequately funded by their parent institutions to procure adequate information resources.
A library's collection development efforts cannot be effective unless its policy efforts are efficient.This practice that is responsible for selecting and acquiring information specialist to perform their myriad function to the users effectively (Nagy et al., 2020).Academic librarians must strive to remain competent navigators of acquisition and collection building in order to assist library users' In addition, acquisition practices includes a policy on the conservation and preservation of information materials as well as the weeding of information materials.The policy is to provide guidance to staff when selecting and deselecting resources for the local collection.The library's main objective is to select, maintain and provide access to relevant and representative information sources.In order to facilitate this, many authors agree on the need for every library to have a written collection development policy.Buckland's (2003) argues that all library operations that primarily facilitate the exploitation of the collections and those directly consumed by the end users of the library have

Response Rate
Their roots in the collection development policy (Björkdahl, 2020) perceives that this policy (collection development policy.) is a sine qua non for any library that wants to build a functional collection whether by traditional methods or in an information age.Therefore, a collection development policy is to provide guidance to staff when selecting and deselecting resources for the local collection.In this case, it serves as a guideline for each of the stages of material handling such as selection, acquisition, processing, housing, weeding, retention, preservation, relegation and discarding of all types of library materials.This reduces personal bias by setting individual selection decisions in the context of the aims of collection building practice.It also clarifies the purpose and scope of local collections and allows selection decisions to be evaluated.Activities associated with building and managing a library's collection should be planned and organized.A written Collection Development Policy is perceived to be an important part of good collection management so the policy must be made available for effective management of library's materials.According to the responses from librarians, selection, no respondent strongly agreed to the availability of selection policy while ( 13) thirteen (50%) agreed to it, no respondent strongly disagreed and ( 13) thirteen (50%) disagreed this makes the mean score 2.00 and it is rejectable.Gift and exchanges have (12) twelve respondents, (46.15%), no one agreed to it but ( 14) fourteen respondents which makes (53.84) strongly agreed while no one disagreed to it.This makes the mean score 2.92 and it is acceptable.In the case of weeding, the entire population strongly disagreed to it.

Response Rate
Research Question 2: What are the effects of poor implementation of collection development policy?Findings from table 3, shows the effects of poor implementation of collection development policy and nineteen respondents with (73.07%) strongly agreed that no one is responsible for building library collections while (7) seven respondents with (26.92%) agreed that no one is responsible for building library collections while no respondent disagreed and agreed to it.On the other hand, ( 16) sixteen respondents with 61.53%strongly agreed that Selection of library collections is done haphazardly, (9) nine respondents with 34.61% also agreed that the Selection of library collections is done haphazardly while (1) respondent while 3.84% strongly disagreed that Selection of library collections is done haphazardly and no respondent disagreed that Selection of library collections is done haphazardly, this made a mean score of 3.61 which is acceptable.( 22) respondents which indicated 84.61% strongly agreed that library budget is wasted while (3), 11.53% also agreed on the wastage of library budget, just (1)one, 3.84% strongly disagreed that library budget is wasted and no respondent disagreed that library budget is wasted, made a mean score of 3.80 which is acceptable.
(16) Respondents which indicated 61.53% strongly agreed that patrons are not satisfied in their information search while (10), 38.46% also agreed that patrons are not satisfied in their information search.No respondent strongly disagreed or disagreed that patrons are not satisfied in their information search; this item has a mean score of 3.61 which is acceptable.(10) Ten, respondents with 38.46% strongly agreed that the objectives of the library are not met while (14) respondents with 53.84%only agreed that the objectives of the library are not met, 7 respondents with 7.69% disagreed that the objectives of the library are not met and no respondent disagreed that the objectives of the library are not met.(24)twenty-four respondents with 92.30% strongly agreed that Some of the library collections are irrelevant and (2) two respondents with 7.69% agreed thatsome of the library collections are irrelevant while no respondent strongly disagreed and disagreed that some of the library collections are irrelevant.
The item which has a mean score of 3.92 is acceptable.(4) Four respondents with 15.38% strongly agreed that most collections are not accessed and utilized, (7) seven respondents with (26.92%) agreed that most collections are not accessed and utilized, (13) thirteen respondents with 50% strongly disagreed that most collections are not accessed and utilized, while (2) two respondents with 7.69% disagreed that most collections are not accessed and utilized.The item which has a mean score of 2.50 is acceptable.( 17) Seventeen respondents with 65.38% strongly agreed that the library is abandoned for another, (9) nine respondents with 34.61% also agreed thatthe library is abandoned for another while no respondent strongly disagreed or disagreed that the library is abandoned for another.The item which has a mean score of 3.65 is acceptable.(18) Eighteen respondents with 69.23% strongly agreed that less attention is given library and (8) eight respondents with 30.76% also agreed that less attention is given the library while no respondent strongly disagreed or disagreed that less attention is given to the library.The item which has a mean score of 3.69 is acceptable.The result clearly indicated that with poor implementation of the collection development policy, the objectives of the library are not met while most collections are not accessed and utilized and Selection of library collections is done haphazardly.
Research Question 3: What are the factors responsible for poor implementation of collection development policy?20) respondents with 76.92% strongly agreed that there is no time to draw up the collection development policy, (5) respondents with 19.23% also agreed that there is no time to draw up the collection development policy, just (1) one respondent with 3.84% that strongly disagreed with "There is no time to draw up" no disagreed to "There is no time to draw up".The item which has a mean score of 3.73 is acceptable,(18) Eighteen respondents with 69.23% strongly agreed the Financial constraint, (7) Seven respondents with 26.92% agreedto financial constraint no one strongly disagreed to financial constraint just (1) one respondent with 3.84% that disagreed to financial constraint.
The item which has a mean score of 3.61 is acceptable, (12) twelve respondents, (46.15%) strongly agreed lack of awareness of the merits of collection development policy, (10) ten, respondents with 38.46% agreed lack of awareness of the merits of collection development policy, (4) Four respondents with 15.38% strongly disagreedlack of awareness of the merits of collection development policy, no respondent disagreed lack of awareness of the merits of collection development policy.The item which has a mean score of 3.30 is acceptable.(16) Sixteen respondents with 61.53% strongly agreed lack of professional librarians and (8) eight respondents with 30.76% also agreed lack of professional librarians, while (2) two respondents with 7.69% strongly disagreed lack of professional librarians and no respondent disagreed lack of professional librarians.The item which has a mean score of 3.53 is acceptable.(20) Respondents with 76.92% strongly agreed other courses are considered Inferior, (6) respondents with 23.07% agreed other courses are considered Inferior and no respondent strongly disagreed or disagreed courses are considered Inferior.
The item which has a mean score of 3.76 is acceptable.(4) Four respondents with 15.38% strongly agreed resistant to change, (3) respondents with 11.53% also agreed resistant to change while ( 14) respondents with 53.84%only strongly disagreed resistant to change and ( 5) five respondent with 19.23% disagreed resistant to change.The item which has a mean score of 2.23 is rejectable.(2) Two respondents with 7.69% strongly agreed personal interest and ( 5) five respondent with 19.23% agreed personal interest while (16) Sixteen respondents with 61.53% and (3) respondents with 11.53% strongly disagreed and disagreed respectively.The item which has a mean score of 2.84 is acceptable.All the (26) respondents with 100% strongly agreed lack of collection development policy.The item which has a mean score of 4.00 is acceptable.(13) Thirteen respondents with 50% strongly agreedlack of cooperation from parent organization, (8) eight respondents with 30.76% also agreed lack of cooperation from parent organization while ( 5) respondents with 19.23% also strongly disagreed lack of cooperation from parent organization and no respondent disagreed lack of cooperation from parent organization.. (1) One respondent with 3.84% strongly agreed lack of supervision of collection development policy, (7) Seven respondents with 26.92% agreed lack of supervision of collection development policy while (12) twelve respondents, (46.15%) and ( 6) respondents with 23.07%strongly disagreed and disagreedlack of supervision of collection development policy.The item which has a mean score of 2.11 is rejectable Research Question 4: What are the strategies to overcome poor implementation of collection development policy in the library?The data analyzed in table 4 indicates that in order to overcome poor implementation of collection development policy in Polytechnic libraries shows that Respondents with 76.92% strongly agreed adequate time to draw up the policy be made, (4) Four respondents with 15.38% agreed adequate time to draw up the policy be made while (2) Two respondents with 7.69% strongly disagreed while no respondent disagreed.
The item which has a mean score of 3.69 is acceptable.(21)Twenty-one respondents which indicated 80.76% strongly agreed adequate finance be budgeted, ( 5) respondents with 19.23% also agreed while no respondent strongly disagreed or disagreed adequate finance be budgeted.
The item which has a mean score of 3.80 is acceptable.(12) Twelve respondents, (46.15%) strongly agreed awareness of merits for collection development policy be made, (10) ten, respondents with 38.46% agreed awareness of merits for collection development policy be made, (4) Four respondents with 15.38% disagreed awareness of merits for collection development policy be made and no respondent disagreed to it.The item which has a mean score of 3.30 is acceptable.(18) Eighteen respondents with 69.23% strongly agreed, Professional librarians to draw the policy, (4) Four respondents with 15.38% agreed Professional librarians to draw the policy, and (4) Four respondents with 15.38% also agreed Professional librarians to draw the policy while no respondent disagreed to it.
The item which has a mean score of 3.53 is acceptable.(22) Respondents which indicated 84.61% strongly agreed no course should be considered Inferior and (4) four respondents with 15.38% agreed no course should be considered Inferior while no respondent strongly disagreed and disagreed on no course should be considered Inferior.The item which has a mean score of 3.84 is acceptable.(2) Two respondents with 7.69% strongly agreed the policy should be flexible and (3) respondents with 11.53% agreed to it while (18) Eighteen respondents with 69.23% strongly disagreed and (3) respondents with 11.53% disagreed to it.The item which has a mean score of 2.15 is rejectable.(3) Respondents with 11.53% strongly agreed patrons interest be considered, (7) Seven respondents with 26.92% agreedto it while (16) Sixteen respondents with 61.53% strongly disagreed and no respondent disagreed patrons interest be considered.The item which has a mean score of 2.50 is acceptable.(8) Eight respondents with 30.76% strongly agreed collection development policy be made available, (4) four respondents with 15.38% agreed to it while ( 14) respondents with 53.84%strongly disagreed and no respondent disagreed collection development policy be made available.The item which has a mean score of 2.76 is acceptable.(15) Fifteen respondents with (57.69%) strongly agreed cooperation from parent organisation and (11) eleven with 42.30 agreed cooperation from parent organisation while no respondent strongly disagreed and disagreed to it.The item which has a mean score of 3.80 is acceptable.( 16) Sixteen respondents with 61.53% strongly agreed and (10) ten, respondents with 38.46% agreed the supervision of collection development policy while no respondent strongly disagreed and disagreed to it.The item which has a mean score of 3.61 is acceptable.

Results and Discussions
From the results of the study, a collection development policy is available but encompasses only the area of acquisition.This finding supports the view of (Gregory, 2019) who perceives that a functional collection development policy is to provide guidance to staff when selecting and deselecting resources for the local collection.He further opines that it serves as a guideline for acquisition.It was also discovered that collection development policies are not very effective in these libraries.In other words, written acquisition policies should be available in Polytechnic libraries and academic libraries at large and these policies should strictly be followed when selecting and deselecting library resources.
The result of findings shows that Effect of poor implementation of collection development policy ranges from No one is responsible for building library collections, Selection of library collections is done haphazardly, Library budget is wasted, Patrons are not satisfied in search of their information needs, The objectives of the library are not met, Some of the library collections are irrelevant, Most collections are not accessed and utilized, The library is abandoned for another and Less attention is given to the library.The issue of no one is responsible for building library collections supports (Kohlberger & Gadermaier, 2022) when he noted Effective selection depends on a successful partnership between each academic department and the Library.Faculty librarians, whose role it is to support academics, researchers and students, are responsible for developing collections in all formats in their designated subject fields informed by the collection development policy and collection analysis tools while the issue of selection of library collections haphazardly supports the view of (Hallam et al., 2021) who noted that the Faculty Librarians liaise with faculty members when making collection development decisions in line with the collection development policy.Together they determine priorities, decide which material should be acquired, which methods for delivery are most suitable, the number of copies to be purchased, and movement between library locations.Where requests for material from a department come to less than anticipated, the librarian may, in liaison with that department's faculty, purchase materials for the department to support the undergraduate curriculum and/or, in agreement with the relevant Dean and Heads of Department, transfer funds to accounts that have orders pending.He also stated that when the management failed to implement the collection development policy, it becomes a faculty or a man business and most times not having the interest of the library users at heart but personal gains.
From the result of the study which invariably was derived from the respondents in research question 3, the following factors were identified: Lack of funds, Lack of cooperation from parent organization, inadequate professionals/librarians, lack of collection development policy, materials not relevant to the polytechnics curricular and resistance to change.These findings are in consonance with some of the problems pointed out by (Mace et al., 2018) which included poor funding, lack of collection development policy, lack of written development policy, lack of equipment and facilities.He further mentions that the obligations of libraries cannot be totally fulfilled unless there is adequate fund for the library.
The problem of funding supports the view of (Wanjiku Ndungu & Wacuka Gikandi, 2018) who concurs that lack of funds from various governments has been noted as one of the causes for poor performance of academic libraries.This finding shows that serious attention should be made in these libraries to correct these identified problems.These problems can be remedied if solutions are approached through the above perspective.On the issue of strategies that can improve implementation of collection development policy, the respondents agreed that all the strategies suggested ranging from adequate time to draw up the policy be made, adequate finance be budgeted, awareness of merits for collection development policy be made, Professional librarians to draw the policy, no course should be considered Inferior, the policy should be flexible, patrons interest be considered, collection development policy be made available, cooperation from parent organization.The issue of no course should be considered inferior supports (Gregory, 2019) views that a collection development policy serves as a contract with users which demonstrate the individual within what they can expect of the library both in terms of collections and of the service.A thorough planning and execution by librarians in developing current and adequate information resources that will embrace the curriculum of the Polytechnics is also recommended.The issue of patrons' interest be considered supports (Henderson et al., 2020) who pointed out that is a necessity for any meaningful library development if the librarian must also ensure that no race, nationality, profession, trade, religion, school of thought, or local customer is overlooked during selection.

Conclusion
The study reveals that lack of collection development policy in the area of weeding, gifts and exchanges and selection poses a lot of problems in collection building.The process of collection development will not be fully implemented if there are no written policies guiding these library practices.It was discovered that information materials are acquired mainly through gifts and purchase.This implies that there is the need to embrace other avenues of acquiring information such as donations and exchanges in order to enhance their collections.The implication is also that the libraries may be flooded with books and information materials not relevant to the curriculum of the institutions.
Inadequate professionals/librarians, resistance to change, lack of cooperation from parent organizations, worn out materials, and lack of collection development policy were among the major constraints libraries faced as a result of poor implementation of collection development policy.The implication is that if library administrators do not adequately plan for provision of sufficient funds, employment of qualified librarians, this will lead to low quality of lecturers and students research activities/output of the library.

Table 4
depicts a picture of the factors responsible for poor implementation of collection development policy.The table revealed that (