Sheds in this study served predominantly older and retired men, often with health issues related to ageing, and a lack of motivation to take part in ‘work-like’ activities that replicated previous employment (See Table 1 for activities). Health concerns faced by Shed members included poor physical and mental health, substance use, and health problems related to social exclusion, isolation and unemployment. Sheds 1, 3 and 4 included members of 30-50 years of age who were unable to work due to long-term physical and mental health issues. All Sheds shared a specific ‘ethos’ (a term coined by Shed members and stakeholders): the organisations were run ‘by the men for the men’ and did not oblige members to take part in any set activity or agenda. The highest priority for all were the members’ leisure needs (quote 1-See Table 2 for all quotes).

When asked about their own Sheds, participants stated that they did not view their Shed as a formal service of any kind, but that they did explicitly aim to provide a practical and safe space for community members of all backgrounds to meet. Committee members from three of the five Sheds all agreed that the general improvement of the health and wellbeing of their members was a secondary aim, and that these Sheds did not target specific health outcomes. All of the interview participants from all five Sheds (62 members) reported that they did not want the Shed viewed as offering a formal ‘service’ or as a health provider. They preferred that their Sheds remain an informal and unstructured space for men to meet in their communities whenever they wished. For these reasons, those interviewed said that they avoided formalising their activities or operations, aiming to protect the informal and flexible nature of their organisation and the immediate needs of their members.

We found four key areas that may adversely affect their sustainability and the potential to play a role in improving the health of older men:

Recruiting volunteers to undertake operational tasks;

Dealing with members whose heath needs are complex, including negotiating responsibility for care;

Acquiring premises suitable for activities to meet member needs;

Generating income to fund Shed activities.

Other challenges including recruiting new members (including advertising) and ensuring adequate communication among members (telephone and email contact) but analysis of this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Recruiting volunteers to undertake tasks

All of the Sheds required volunteers to contribute to the day to day running of the organisation. Like other voluntary organisations, each Shed depended on a committed management committee to acquire premises and find funding to ensure survival. A small committee of volunteers (including chairperson, treasurer and secretary) completed administrative tasks. Sheds also required other members to run activities and events or perform tasks such as training members how to use tools and equipment (quote 2).

Core committee members often felt overburdened; their administrative roles added pressure and stress in their lives (quote 3). Shed 4 struggled to recruit committee members as a high proportion grappled with health issues that limited their participation. As most of the members of all Sheds studied were 60 years of age or over, committees risked losing members to age related ill-health or death, increasing strain on those members who remained (quote 4).

Many retired members reported disinterest in assisting the committee or engaging in ‘work-like’ tasks that mimicked their previous employment; they attended for their own needs and to escape responsibility. Committees members reported they did not want to pressure members or diminish their enjoyment (quote 5). Sheds interviewees reported that the lack of volunteers for administrative activities meant they worried about long-term sustainability. They had little capacity to recruit new members or expand activities to meet the health and wellbeing needs of their community.

Dealing with complex health needs

The Sheds in this study did not provide formal healthcare for those with physical or mental health issues, for example depression. None of the Shed members interviewed had any formal training qualifications for dealing with people with complex health issues. Shed volunteers interviewed found it difficult to accommodate individuals with complex physical and mental health needs; they reported that care for others exceeded what they felt prepared to do, and that it was not their responsibility (quote 6).

Shed committee members reported that they tried to avoid taking on such complex cases. Turning people away, however, ran counter to their inclusive ethos. Administrative committees grappled with decisions about including men referred to their Sheds from state health services, such as doctors or care workers (quote 7).

Shed 4 allowed those with complex health needs to participate if accompanied by a registered social worker or carer (including paid carers or family members). However, this led to further referrals from state health services that the Shed could not accommodate. Members questioned the safety of those with complex health needs working with potentially dangerous tools and machinery (See Table 1), and Shed liability should an accident occur (quote 8). Members from Sheds 1 and 3 also expressed concerns over monitoring the mental and physical deterioration of their members, especially older members showing signs of Dementia and Alzheimer’s. These findings showed a tension between the demands of public health professionals and the desires of Shed members to protect their ethos.

Acquisition of premises

Acquiring and sustaining adequate premises for Shed activities challenged all Sheds. Respondents explained the importance of reaching men across their communities, and the prime role of location and accessibility, especially for accommodating less mobile older members (quote 9).

Volunteers lacked skills and knowledge to acquire premises. Shed 5 had secured access to a local school woodwork department, but with restricted hours for their members to use it. The other four Sheds struggled to gain full ownership of buildings or land, or to secure long-term, low-cost rental agreements from private landlords or public sector authorities. Key Shed stakeholders reported reluctance from public sector authorities to pass ownership of buildings and land to Sheds because of authorities’ lack of understanding of what Sheds do, including their potential benefits to health and wellbeing (quote 10).

Premises available for Sheds were often unsuitable due to a lack of space, high costs for building refurbishment, uncertainties with planning permissions, or the instability of lease agreements (quote 11). Sheds 3 and 4 had lease agreements with their local councils, however, the lease agreement of Shed 3 did not allow for any modifications of the building to accommodate increasing numbers of members. Shed 4 encountered damp and poorly ventilated premises. With predominantly older members, Sheds were not able to maintain the building themselves, causing further challenges to their sustainability.

Funding

Sheds often faced difficulties paying rental costs and utility bills, and sourcing funding to grow their Shed and expand activities (quote 12). All Shed respondents placed value on leisure activities that encouraged socialisation amongst members as a way to address issues like social isolation and exclusion. Therefore, they could not pressure members to spend their social and leisure time generating income. As a result, Sheds often relied on funding from external sources, such as community donations and charity grant funding. Shed 4 operated in an area of low income and high unemployment rates, therefore members were less able to contribute their own money, and their Shed could not gather donations in their local community. Financial pressures led four of the five Sheds to produce items to sell at local events, and to offer a paid repair service in their community (such as fixing park benches or making planters). This generated a small amount of income, but also placed unwanted obligations on members. Thus, fundraising often conflicted with members’ preferred characteristics of Sheds as places for relaxation (quote 13). Applying for external grants to sustain Shed activity could be very competitive and members often did not possess skills and knowledge to fill in applications. High competition for funding often led to a prevailing any money is good money (Shed member) attitude, detracting members from the activities they aimed to deliver. Further, Sheds are relatively unknown and funders have yet to be persuaded of their benefits, especially those for health and wellbeing (quote 14).