DU bars were also more likely to be located in neighborhoods with a socio-economic status judged to be “lower class” by observers (48 percent of the DU bars compared to only 21 percent of the NDU bars). This feeling was attributable, in part, to a high concentration of panhandlers (83% versus 54%) and prostitution (42% versus 20%) in the neighborhoods of the bars with drug-using patrons.
In keeping with the urban nature of the DU bars, observers more often said they felt unsafe in such neighborhoods (52% of the surrounding areas of the DU bars were considered “unsafe” compared to only 21% of the NDU bar neighborhoods). However, the drug-using bars were largely concentrated in San Francisco (90%, or 27 out of 30 DU bars). The sample included bars located in San Francisco (74%), Alameda (19%), and Contra Costa (6%) counties. Geographic and other key characteristics of non-drug use (NDU) versus drug use (DU) bars Observers were trained in “thick description” approaches which emphasizes detailed, non-judgmental descriptions. Special training in field note writing was conducted by an experienced qualitative researcher. Observers were asked to write up their notes as soon as possible after observations, normally within twenty-four hours. The template generally followed the areas for observation as outlined in the BOG with added sections for personal observations. Observers were asked to follow an open-ended outline, the “Field Note Template,” when recounting their experiences of bars to maintain a basis for comparison across all observations. Each observer was required to write up his/her own impressions of the bar in individual field notes that served to complement and elaborate on data provided in the BOG. At each initial visit, a ‘bar observation guide’ (a standardized checklist abbreviated as a BOG) was filled out, and each observer produced his/her own field notes based on a template to ensure specific topics were covered in all write-ups. Each bar observation (always done by a team of two observers with the occasional extra observers-in-training). Qualitative and quantitative materials were collected during each observation. Most observational periods were three to six hours long. Observations took place over about a two year period. In the presentation of data, care is taken to mask the identity of specific locations and any individuals associated with those locales. Special training meetings were devoted to reviewing guidelines and ethnical standards for observational and ethnographic research. The Institutional Review Board approved the protocols that were used in the observations and interviews. The list was not exhaustive but did represent a range of characteristics including different types of bars (e.g., dance, neighborhood, sports), a range of clientele (gay and straight, those patronized by different ethnic groups, those with different age brackets, SES levels, etc.), in different types of locations (urban centers, hotel bars, bars attached to restaurants) and with varying hours. This resulted in a list of over 400 bars in three counties in the SF Bay Area for which we had relatively detailed information. A number of steps were used in creating the list of bars from which we ultimately chose the venues: review of telephone books, internet sites, discussions with ‘insider’ sources and eight focus groups (3 with bar staff and 5 with bar patrons subdivided into ethnic- and gender-specific groups and by sexual orientation). Bars were originally selected into the sample on the basis of several sources of information. Knowledge of common venues of alcohol and illicit substance use can help us understand drug use patterns among different subcultures, dynamics of initiation and sustained use, give new insights for planning interventions aimed at polydrug/alcohol users as well as helping to establish new policy guidelines.Įthnographic observations were done in 105 bars in the counties of San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa even though the two latter counties have larger populations, 70 percent of those bars were in San Francisco itself since this is a center for tourism. It is important to gain knowledge about public areas where concentrations of drug users (normally a “hidden” population) might be found. Research on drinking contexts has led to specific policy approaches that have helped reduce the harm alcohol use can cause( Babor 2000 Single 1992, 1993, 1994 Saltz 1987). Because alcohol is legal and dispensed through public outlets, a body of research has accumulated on contextual and environmental factors that could become targets of policy approaches for reducing alcohol use/abuse. Little work has been done on exploring the use of drugs within bar and club environments, environments that are typically associated with alcohol but have also been known to have drug use.