The General Directorate of Social Policy and Addictions of the Ministry of Social Development works on prevention tasks, primary care, assistance, and reintegration of people, among other things. The congressional watchdog found that there is a lack of structure within the Interministerial Committee that was supposed to be created by order of a 2010 ruling. Because of this, the implementation of policies that will address the problem of addiction is being strongly and negatively affected. Also, the report indicated that different NGOs treatment centers did not submit the necessary documentation to work with the City’s government.
The General Auditor of the City of Buenos Aires (AGCBA) stated in its report approved in 2012 that the "Interministerial Committee had not yet been put into operation", where the Interministerial Committee is the body responsible for ensuring planning and creating the guidelines for the Plan detailed in Law 2318 in the year 2007, known as Addictions Law. This law emerged from an initiative of Escuela de Vecinos. Therefore, "it makes planning and coordination among the various state agencies dedicated to the theme of addiction very intricate as to ensure a comprehensive policy and effective supervision." Because of this absence, the ministries involved lack a shared vision that includes every problem in order to reduce the risks of addiction treatments.
It should be noted that the Interministerial Committee consists of representatives of the Ministries of Social Development, Health, Education, Economic, Government Control Agency, Justice Department, and the Council of Children and Adolescents.
According to the report, the program under the Directorate General of Social Policy Addiction fulfills its tasks through two types of centers. On the one hand, we can find the Directorate’s as well as the City Government’s centers, like The Piletones. On the other hand, there are centers that have signed agreements, for example with facilities that link organizations with the City Government to carry out the treatment of referred patients.
The auditors reviewed the 20 institutional portfolios of the organizations working with The Directorate and noted that "some communities did not have all of the necessary documentation to be allowed to sign any agreements with the City."
As for the supervision of all therapeutic establishments, the AGCBA found that "in 2009 the Department did not conduct monitoring visits" in schools. The report notes that "the frequency of monitoring visits should not be less than four visits per year" and that "the lack of periodicity generates an impact on the administration which affects therapeutic control in the communities and, consequently, it affects the possibility of sanctions" when they may be needed. Since this report in 2009, 21 visits were made in the year 2010.
The Auditors also found that “the written reports made by the General Directorate on the functions of the Therapeutic Communities did not have the necessary information and were therefore not able to monitor the progress of a patient”. For example, “there are no records of the identification of all the people referred to by the Government, the reports are not signed by the supervisor and in the cases where there was a signature, it was not from the corresponding personnel".
As if that was not enough, "there isn’t a unified registry of patients, because the computer system used by the Directorate does not include patients treated in the Comprehensive Community Care Centers (CIAC)," explains AGCBA.
Finally, the City’s watchdog analyzed a sample of the files of patients who will later be referred to other centers and or communities, and the auditors concluded that "there are flaws in the care and administration of files: 100% of the files are single sheets, not attached or stapled, or found in chronological order. Nor is the information needed for follow-up treatment available".