4 ms·

I'm wondering the same thing. $117K out of what total?

by chance_state 7y ago

mushufasa 7y ago
the article said all across the state of ohio. the overall ohio state gov't budget was $67.5 billion in 2016.
- daeken 7y ago
  Jesus, so this is all of 0.000173% of the budget. Significantly less interesting in that context.
  - mushufasa 7y ago
    I'd be surprised if they audited 100% of state expenses. This seems to focus on invoices and not, for example, payroll. Even so, if it was $1b and only 117k of mistakes, that's just .0117%, which seems pretty good to me.
    - gunshai 7y ago
      The closest comparison I can make is as follows. This was 117K was found in transactions during 8 out of 12 months in the year. The article doesn't specify the amount of money transacted during that time. It doesn't give us the total amount of transactions either. It gives an estimate of 18 million in the total year so the closest estimate is 117k out of 12 million. Which is ~1% and seems like a win win. State employees and folks should feel good that they aren't fucking up very often and the analysts should feel good because functionally this number should go to 0. Operationally no idea what it would cost to maintain though. cough
  - geogra4 7y ago
    Yeah, thats actually remarkably good
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    If you instead considered this an audit of the state's expenses, rather than a money-recouping initiative, then it's an impressive feat the state's money goes where it should be.
gunshai 7y ago
So the article is a bit confusing, as it says in a year the state processes over 18 million dollars in transactions. However the pilot program only analyzed transactions from Jan to Sept. For all state agencies (which seems impressive from an aggregation and governance stand point). With in that time period it found 117k in duplicates, so assuming that dollar/transactions are at a constant rate through out the year (they aren't). 117,000/(18,000,000 * (8/12)) ~ .975 % loss in state to vendor(?) transactions. Put another way, with in the time period they studied assuming 12 million dollars in transactions were made, they can potentially recuperate roughly 1% of the total value transacted.
- Mathnerd314 7y ago
  They process 18 million transactions per year, total, not 18 million dollars of transactions. And they only found 56 duplicates, i.e. a 0.0004% rate. (56 / (18e6 * 8/12)) For comparison there's a Kaggle dataset of 2 days of European credit card transactions from 2013. It contains 284k transactions of which 0.147% are fraudulent. This 1000x difference can either be good since it means the state is mostly paying appropriately or bad since the detection is not as good as the credit card company's.
  - gunshai 7y ago
    >18 million payment transactions god damnit you're right. whoops

I'm wondering the same thing. $117K out of what total?

mushufasa 7y ago

the article said all across the state of ohio. the overall ohio state gov't budget was $67.5 billion in 2016.

daeken 7y ago
Jesus, so this is all of 0.000173% of the budget. Significantly less interesting in that context.
- mushufasa 7y ago
  I'd be surprised if they audited 100% of state expenses. This seems to focus on invoices and not, for example, payroll. Even so, if it was $1b and only 117k of mistakes, that's just .0117%, which seems pretty good to me.
  - gunshai 7y ago
    The closest comparison I can make is as follows. This was 117K was found in transactions during 8 out of 12 months in the year. The article doesn't specify the amount of money transacted during that time. It doesn't give us the total amount of transactions either. It gives an estimate of 18 million in the total year so the closest estimate is 117k out of 12 million. Which is ~1% and seems like a win win. State employees and folks should feel good that they aren't fucking up very often and the analysts should feel good because functionally this number should go to 0. Operationally no idea what it would cost to maintain though. cough
- geogra4 7y ago
  Yeah, thats actually remarkably good
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  If you instead considered this an audit of the state's expenses, rather than a money-recouping initiative, then it's an impressive feat the state's money goes where it should be.

gunshai 7y ago

So the article is a bit confusing, as it says in a year the state processes over 18 million dollars in transactions. However the pilot program only analyzed transactions from Jan to Sept. For all state agencies (which seems impressive from an aggregation and governance stand point). With in that time period it found 117k in duplicates, so assuming that dollar/transactions are at a constant rate through out the year (they aren't). 117,000/(18,000,000 * (8/12)) ~ .975 % loss in state to vendor(?) transactions. Put another way, with in the time period they studied assuming 12 million dollars in transactions were made, they can potentially recuperate roughly 1% of the total value transacted.

Mathnerd314 7y ago
They process 18 million transactions per year, total, not 18 million dollars of transactions. And they only found 56 duplicates, i.e. a 0.0004% rate. (56 / (18e6 * 8/12)) For comparison there's a Kaggle dataset of 2 days of European credit card transactions from 2013. It contains 284k transactions of which 0.147% are fraudulent. This 1000x difference can either be good since it means the state is mostly paying appropriately or bad since the detection is not as good as the credit card company's.
- gunshai 7y ago
  >18 million payment transactions god damnit you're right. whoops