Fair Decision-Making for Food Inspections
  Data and algorithms are essential and complementary parts of a large-scale
decision-making process. However, their injudicious use can lead to unforeseen
consequences, as has been observed by researchers and activists alike in the
recent past. In this paper, we revisit the application of predictive models by
the Chicago Department of Public Health to schedule restaurant inspections and
prioritize the detection of critical food code violations. We perform the first
analysis of the model's fairness to the population served by the restaurants in
terms of average time to find a critical violation. We find that the model
treats inspections unequally based on the sanitarian who conducted the
inspection and that, in turn, there are geographic disparities in the benefits
of the model. We examine four alternate methods of model training and two
alternative ways of scheduling using the model and find that the latter
generate more desirable results. The challenges from this application point to
important directions for future work around fairness with collective entities
rather than individuals, the use of critical violations as a proxy, and the
disconnect between fair classification and fairness in the dynamic scheduling
system.
