## 4 Case Study  
### The Dutch Childcare Benefits Scandal  
To contextualize the theoretical model and evaluate the framework's operational effectiveness, a real-world case study will be examined: the Dutch Childcare Benefits \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Description of Connection** & **Notes** \\ \hline DPIA: Q2 \(\rightarrow\) FRIA: Q10, Q13 & Stakeholders responsibilities \\ \hline FRIA: Q34 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q4 & Personal data processing \\ \hline DPIA: Q8 \(\rightarrow\) FRIA: Q123 & Legal basis \\ \hline FRIA: Q35 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q9 & Data minimization principle \\ FRIA: Q35–36 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q47 & Data quality \\ \hline FRIA: Q18 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q10 & Data quality \\ \hline FRIA: Q106–108 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q12 & Communication \\ \hline DPIA: Q14–Q16 \(\rightarrow\) FRIA: Q124 & Fundamental Rights \\ \hline FRIA: Q52 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q17 & Contracts: Agreements \\ \hline FRIA: Q52 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q33 & Personnel management \\ \hline FRIA: Q84 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q24 & Accountability and review \\ \hline FRIA: Q115 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q26 & Accountability and review \\ \hline FRIA: Q28 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q20–Q30, Q32–Q42, Q44–Q46, Q67 & Data Security \\ \hline FRIA: Q51 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q34 & Network security \\ \hline FRIA: Q33, Q53 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q41 & Data anonymization \\ \hline FRIA:31 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q43 & Authentication methods \\ \hline FRIA: Q32 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q44 & Logging \\ \hline FRIA: Q30 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q45 & Archiving \\ \hline FRIA: Q8, Q69–Q82, Q122–Q128 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q66 & AI system implications \\ \hline FRIA: Q9–Q16, Q18–Q37, Q44, Q48–Q50, Q52, Q64 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q67 & AI system threats \\ \hline FRIA: Q9–Q37, Q44, Q48–Q53, Q56, Q59–Q68, Q83–Q146 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q68 & AI system sources of risk \\ \hline FRIA: Q9–Q37, Q44, Q48–Q53, Q59–Q68, Q83–Q121, Q129–Q146 \(\rightarrow\) DPIA: Q69 & AI system measures \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Synergies between DPIA and FRIA. Scandal. This incident has been selected due to its profound implications for FRs and its exemplary demonstration of the complexities inherent in ADM systems. The case serves as an ideal test for the integrated DPIA and FRIA framework, offering rich insights into its capability to detect, analyze, and propose mitigations for the potential harms posed by ADM systems. The Dutch Childcare Benefits Scandal, also known as \"Toeslagenafaire\" [48], was a significant event that revealed serious issues within the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration, particularly around the use of algorithms that led to widespread institutional racism. This scandal had widespread consequences, leading to the resignation of the Dutch Government in 2021. It was characterized by the Tax and Customs Administration's use of algorithms to create risk profiles for childcare benefits applicants, where \"foreign-sounding names\" and \"dual nationality\" were unjustly used as indicators of potential fraud. This practice resulted in thousands of families reaching 35,000, particularly from racialized low- and middle-income groups, being falsely accused of fraud and forced into financial hardship, such as debt, poverty, job loss, and even homelessness. The situation was exacerbated by a lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process, with those affected having no resources to challenge the decisions made against them. Key aspects of the scandal include:  
* Racial profiling and discrimination: The risk-scoring algorithm employed by the Dutch Tax Administration inherently discriminated against people based on nationality and ethnicity, marking non-Dutch nationals and those with dual citizenship for harsher scrutiny. This led to significant financial and personal distress for affected families, many of whom belonged to minority groups. * Consequences for families: The scandal had devastating impacts on the lives of thousands of families.