Which violation numbers show up most often in failed inspections

When a Chicago restaurant fails an inspection, the report almost always includes a few specific violation numbers — the ones that carry the weight. Looking across years of failed reports, the patterns are remarkably consistent.

The "Fail-makers" — violations that, when present, often push an inspection to Fail

Several violation numbers show up disproportionately in Fail reports versus Pass-with-Conditions reports. These are the ones that, on their own, can take a kitchen down:

**Violation 38 (insects, rodents, animals not present).** The most common Fail-driver in Chicago. Severe pest activity — live roaches, fresh droppings, gnaw marks across food storage — is consistently cited as a primary reason for a Fail. A *little* pest evidence might be a Conditional. A lot is a Fail.

**Violation 22 (proper cold holding temperatures).** A close second. Improper cold holding by itself is usually a Conditional, but when it's paired with significant volumes of food in the danger zone for extended periods, it pushes to Fail. Multi-cooler failures, food destroyed on-site for being out of temperature — those are Fail conditions.

**Violation 7 (sewage and wastewater properly disposed).** Less common, but almost always Fail-grade when cited. Active sewage backup, drains overflowing, plumbing failures contaminating food prep areas. Inspectors close restaurants for this fairly often.

**Violation 13 (food separated and protected — raw vs ready-to-eat).** When raw chicken is leaking onto produce, or raw fish is being prepped on a board that just held salad ingredients without sanitation — Fail-grade. Cross-contamination is one of the categories the city takes very seriously.

**Violation 1 (person in charge present and demonstrates knowledge).** Doesn't sound dramatic, but when an inspector finds the manager has zero food safety knowledge, can't answer basic questions, and is overseeing other priority violations — that combination usually fails.

The "Fail-multipliers" — violations that, when present alongside others, escalate the result

Some violations don't fail an inspection on their own but combine badly with the Fail-makers:

**Violation 23 (hot holding).** Usually a Conditional on its own. Combined with violation 22 (cold holding), it tells the inspector that *no* temperature control is working — that's a Fail.

**Violation 33 (cooling methods).** Ditto. Improper cooling alone is usually correctable. Combined with active temperature abuse already happening, it suggests systemic failure.

**Violation 5 (hands washed and clean).** Single bare-hands incident: written up, possibly a Conditional. Multiple incidents observed across the inspection: usually a Fail, especially with cross-contamination cited too.

**Violation 47 (food contact surfaces clean).** Filthy cutting boards, encrusted slicers — generally a Conditional unless paired with active prep happening on those surfaces.

What the data shows about clusters

Looking at clustering patterns:

• A Fail with **only one violation cited** is unusual. Maybe 5% of Fails are single-violation. They're typically the most severe — sewage backup, severe pest infestation, etc.
• Most Fails have **5–15 violations** cited. The combination of a few priority items plus several priority foundation items is the typical Fail profile.
• Fails with **20+ violations** suggest systemic operational breakdown — usually multiple interconnected issues.

The number of violations isn't the most important metric. The *types* of violations matter more.

The "almost always present, rarely the cause" violations

A few violations show up in tons of Fail reports but typically aren't the main reason for the Fail:

**Violation 41 (wiping cloths).** Cited in maybe 30% of all inspections, including most Conditional and Fail ones. Almost never the deciding factor.

**Violation 55 (physical facilities maintained).** Cosmetic and structural issues. Always present in old buildings. Rarely the Fail-maker.

**Violation 51 (plumbing).** Cited often. Sometimes serious (Fail-grade), sometimes minor. Read the comments for severity.

What this means for reading reports

A few takeaways:

• A Fail report dominated by violations 38, 22, 13, 7, or 1 is telling you the kitchen had a serious food safety problem.
• A Fail report with a long list of mostly 40s+ violations and a single priority item is more likely a "death by a thousand cuts" inspection — the kitchen was sloppy across the board, not catastrophically broken in one place.
• A Conditional report with low-number priority violations is sometimes more concerning than a Fail report with mostly cosmetic issues. The classification is binary, but the underlying severity is a spectrum.

The summary

When you scan a Fail report, your eye should go to the lowest violation numbers first. Those are almost always the reason the inspection failed. The 50s-and-60s items are context. The 1–28 items are the story.