The General Auditor of the City of Buenos Aires (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) argues that "weaknesses" were detected in the Directorate of Inspection and Control (DGFyC), for example, "inadequate deployment of inspectors and the lack of a reliable and consistent pattern of licensed nursing home facilities" but that, nevertheless, "some efforts in labor inspections were made" through protocol and operating manuals.
The City’s private nursing homes must be registered in the Registry of the "Management Unit for Control and Registration of Residential Homes for Older Adults" (UGCOR, for its acronym in Spanish) and previously authorized by the "Governmental Control Agency". However, the City watchdog, found that the authorized locations, that were not enrolled, were not intimidated to enroll in the registry.
According to the audit, "36% -of households- were not enrolled in UGCOR’s database" although "they were listed as authorized locations in the AGC’s records." Likewise, "2.1% of the enrolled establishments were not in the database of nursing homes authorized by the AGC."
The report adopted in December 2011 on data from 2010, explained that of the total number of homes that according to the Annual Operating Plan had to be inspected by the Directorate, "they only inspected 20%."
AGCBA’s Observations of Nightclub Inspections
The AGCBA evaluated DGFyC’s inspection of nightclubs, class C property. At the time of the audit, "there were 102 registered properties in the Public Registry of Dancing Sites (RPLB, for its acronym in Spanish)". Even though the agency "inspected every site, 11.6% had not proven effective," since "the property was closed at the time of inspection." It should be noted that "96% of the controls were done on weekends."
The report argues that "the staff of inspectors is insufficient for an efficient exercise." The Department of Nocturnal Activity had to use "99 inspective agents from other departments to supervise the premises of registered dance clubs."
Meanwhile, the audit states that the agency does not have a consistent approach compared to the same irregularities. In the list of inspections conducted by the Department of Nocturnal Activity on dance clubs, it shows that "under identical inconsistencies some nightclubs were given a warning while others were closed preemptively."
The DGyFC did not receive the listings with "the required information about the companies and security personnel from local dance clubs" which should have been sent by the General Directorate of Private Security, furthermore, "credentials are not issued to the personnel, and this complicates the ability to control".
In addition, there is "a lack of control over security cameras located on the entrances and exits of the dance clubs" and receive "quarterly certificates of fire department revalidation "that are "unreliable" because "the due dates are outdated."
According to the report, the responsibilities of the audited area "carry a high risk." The exercise of police power on local dance and geriatric facilities are "activities which concentrate a large number of young and elderly people," and in which " regrettable events have occurred" thus requiring "permanent coordination of actions with the various agencies involved in the stages of accreditation, registration, control, and punishment of such activities (DGHyP, DGFyCO, Private Security DG, UGCOR, Administrative Support Unit of Special Fouls (UAAFE), and the Superintendent of Fire Department.”
Finally, despite the irregularities, the watchdog said there has been "progress in labor inspections." Thus, it argues that "it is important to note the issuance of various standards aimed at improving the internal control of the organization" as a protocol "established procedures and programming circuit", making the appropriate "implementation tools" and approval of "a manual of procedures for inspections." Through the latter, they generated a check list "for the preparation of inspection reports, issues that will later be audited."