The scholarship program promoted by the Government of the City of Buenos Aires in 2005 to help middle school students presented irregularities such as "lack of elementary systems of internal control" and "disparity of criteria for the allocation of benefits" According to a report from the Buenos Aires Audit Office (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish), which, as a general conclusion, stated that "it cannot be assured if the beneficiaries (of the scholarships) were the ones with the most complex socio-economic situation."

The shortcomings detected by the Watchdog appear from the request for financial aid. To register for a scholarship, all that needs to be done is to fill out a form that describes the context of the student and it will be "validated with a simple signature," as an affidavit. The Ministry of Education does not interview applicants or a socio-environmental study; both procedures are provided for in the regulations governing the program.

The AGCBA detected a "large number of errors in the preparation of the forms" by the "responsible adults" that complete them and, in addition, the "lack of actions" of the Ministry of Education to minimize the possibility of mistakes. Also, "there is no control over the data load" to the portfolio computer system, which is a private company. The data recorded in the forms are processed in an equation for which a ranking is obtained that defines whether an applicant is a recipient or not. Therefore, these irregularities, as a whole, can directly affect the delivery of benefits, because a failure in the variables alters the results.

In 2005, the Government of the City of Buenos Aires delivered 45,936 scholarships, out of a total of 59,147 applications. The benefit was $ 250 and $ 500, and was paid in two equal installments to which was added a single additional $ 150 for technical and artistic modalities, as didactic material. The total budget executed was $ 15.5 million. For its study, the Audit had asked for a random sample of 296 scholarship application forms, both awarded and rejected, and the portfolio provided 214. In addition, the control agency received a database containing information from all applicants. In the analysis, "manufacturing errors in 131 forms" were detected, 61.2%. On the other hand, the information of each of the items of the requests with the database was checked to verify if the score assigned to the candidates in the ranking was correct. The results? The AGCBA found "load errors in 150 forms (about 214, or 70.9%), and differences between the ranking assigned by the Program and that obtained by the Audit team in 149 cases, 69.6%."

However, the examination also "showed the lack of a uniform allocation criterion between the ranking and the amount of the scholarship". That is, there were cases of students who, although they obtained the same ranking, received scholarships for different amounts.

The City Audit concluded that the 2005 scholarship plan carried out "inconsistent administrative processes that prevent the public funds awarded to the program from being properly executed."