As AI-based decision systems proliferate, their successful operationalization requires balancing multiple desiderata: predictive performance, disparity across groups, safeguarding sensitive group attributes (e.g., race), and engineering cost. We present a holistic framework for evaluating and contextualizing fairness interventions with respect to the above desiderata. The two key points of practical consideration are where (pre-, in-, post-processing) and how (in what way the sensitive group data is used) the intervention is introduced. We demonstrate our framework using a thorough benchmarking study on predictive parity; we study close to 400 methodological variations across two major model types (XGBoost vs. Neural Net) and ten datasets. Methodological insights derived from our empirical study inform the practical design of ML workflow with fairness as a central concern. We find predictive parity is difficult to achieve without using group data, and despite requiring group data during model training (but not inference), distributionally robust methods provide significant Pareto improvement. Moreover, a plain XGBoost model often Pareto-dominates neural networks with fairness interventions, highlighting the importance of model inductive bias.