The photo was so pathetic, the case so tragic. Brandy Foreman was so mortified by what she’d done that she tried to hide her face from the cameras by pulling up the collar of her shirt.
Foreman was responsible for caring for her 12-year-old daughter, Daelynn. Her task was hard. The girl had cerebral palsy, never walked or talked, and had an abnormally small brain. Foreman allowed her to waste away until her weight fell to 23 1/2 pounds, and she died.
Many failures led to Daelynn’s death. But surely drug use was one cause, as detailed by The Bee’s Andy Furillo and captured by photographer Paul Kitagaki Jr. last week.
A few months before Daelynn’s death, Foreman’s boyfriend was released from prison, where he had been serving time for a drug-related offense. A few months after Daelynn’s death, he was arrested again for a drug offense, and sent back to prison. Foreman herself had been using methamphetamine daily.
Brandy Foreman is responsible for her child’s death, and will pay by serving 25 years to life in prison. But it makes you wonder: If California placed more emphasis on rehabilitation, could it prevent deaths and tragedies such as what happened to Daelynn?
Despite the hard times and budget cuts, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature need to reverse short-sighted decisions related to spending on drug treatment, specifically drug courts.
These courts are unrelated to Proposition 36, the initiative approved in 2000 that promised to keep drug offenders out of prison, but which has been of dubious benefit.
Rather, drug courts have been in operation in California since the 1990s. Drug offenders admitted to the program appear regularly before judges, stay in regular contact with probation officers, undergo testing, and more. Felons have a clear choice: Clean up or go to prison.
Drug courts have proved themselves. The Administrative Office of the Courts last week pegged cost savings at $7,150 for each felon who goes through the program. Participants simply did not reoffend.
Two years ago, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated the state saved $3.50 for every dollar it spent on drug courts.
Proponents are not bleeding hearts. Superior Court Judge Richard Vlavianos of San Joaquin County spent a career prosecuting drug offenders before Gov. Pete Wilson appointed him to the bench.
“That background is really what got me to this point,” said Vlavianos, who is assigned to the drug court and sees results. “What we were doing was not getting change.”
His county’s findings: “Overall, drug court reduced the frequency of negative criminal justice outcomes and reduced the costs by a total of 30 percent. The greatest savings by percentage were in prison days and victimization costs.”
To his credit, Schwarzenegger is cutting the $27.8 million drug court program only slightly. But why not go the other direction?
Judge David Rosenberg, presiding judge of the Yolo Superior Court, is proposing that California dramatically expand the program by pumping $150 million into it.
If past is prologue, the state would save far more than that in reduced law enforcement and prison costs. Savings could go to help keep courts open or to the general fund.
When the budget is $20 billion in the red, lawmakers generally don’t look to add spending. But maybe, just maybe, California can find a way to spend a little more money in order to save money. In the process, the state might avert a few heartbreaks.