Fair Decision-Making for Food Inspections
This work addresses fairness issues in public health decision-making for food safety, though it is incremental as it builds on existing models.
The paper analyzed the fairness of Chicago's predictive model for scheduling restaurant inspections, finding geographic disparities in detection times for critical violations and that alternative scheduling methods improved outcomes.
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.