THE FOSTER CARE BUSINESS MODEL: State-Funded Exploitation and Forced Labor (Case Study: 1966–1979)

Behind the raw, emotional truth of trauma art lies a cold, historical architecture of profit. This page serves as a factual anchor for our collection of 600 artworks, proving that the severe neglect, isolation, and abuse experienced by youth care victims were not isolated family tragedies. They were fueled and facilitated by a highly profitable, state-funded business model.

1. The Paradox of State Intervention

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Dutch state acted with immense authority. It systematically removed young, vulnerable children from their biological parents, utilizing immense institutional power and deep financial resources to place them into designated foster families and kille institutions. Yet, the moment these children were placed, state supervision vanished. The authorities stopped tracking how public funds were spent, leaving children exposed to unchecked greed.

2. The Profit Breakdown: Funding the Abusers

Using the historical, inflation-adjusted foster care rates from 1966 to 1979, we can calculate the exact amount of state capital allocated to a single family taking in three foster children (until each child successively managed to escape in 1972, 1977, and 1979):

• Total State Funding Disbursed: Approx. fl. 51,530 (Dutch Guilders).
• Modern Economic Value (Adjusted for Inflation): Over € 140,000.

To understand what this capital meant to ordinary citizens at the time: fl. 51,530 was enough to purchase a complete, freestanding family home in cash. Alternatively, it equaled the price of ten brand-new cars (Volkswagen Beetles) or the combined gross annual salaries of four working adult citizens.

The government provided a massive, premium budget intended to guarantee high-quality nutrition, modern clothing, education, and security.

3. Double Exploitation: Defrauded Subsidies & Forced Labor

The dark reality behind this state funding is that the money never reached the children. Instead, the children were treated as a double-sided revenue stream:

• Withholding of Basic Needs: Foster parents pocketed the state budget entirely. The children were denied new clothing—instead forced to wear hand-me-downs from church charity boxes. They were denied toys, bicycles, and proper nutrition, leaving them socially isolated and physically neglected.
• Enforced Unpaid Labor: Beyond stripping the children of their state-allocated funds, the foster parents subjected them to forced,  labor. The children were compelled to work hard for hours a day in the household,  full garden work, painting of the house etc.  

4. Conclusion: The Price of a Broken Child

This household was not a sanctuary; it was a state-subsidized enterprise. The fact that the three children had to flee the home one by one between 1972 and 1979 exposes the total failure of the child protection system.

The Dutch government was eager to pay out vast amounts of capital to expand its institutional grip on small children, to mold them by all violent means in their ideas,  but completely blind to how that money weaponized greed. When a foster child is used as a financial generator—drawing huge state subsidies while simultaneously providing free, forced labor—it crosses the line from systemic neglect into state-sanctioned modern slavery. The state's eventual attempt to silence victims with a standardized "gesture" of € 5,000 stands as an insult when contrasted against the massive fortunes the state actively poured into the pockets of their abusers decades prior. 

This does not even take into account the fact that the victim of this care was unable to work for a lifetime, has not accrued a pension, and has never had any future prospects.