The annual Local Government Association and Adass survey of councils' adult social care expenditure had a very surprising finding - that spending on adult care by councils in England actually decreased from 2006-7 to 2007-8 by £250m (about 2%). Interestingly, councils also reported facing lower pressures on services last year compared with 2006-7.

There is a good side to this, according to Adass - improved performance, commissioning and efficiency. Financial discipline certainly appears to have improved with average overspends down from £580,000 to £240,000 per authority, and despite reduced spending, councils appear to be increasing expenditure on preventive services.

But it is a surprising finding given the much-reported ongoing pressures on adult services - particularly as eligibility criteria increased notably from 2006-7 to 2007-8, leaving 72% of councils having at least a substantial threshold (up from 65%); and both government spending on councils and council tax levels increased, by 3.3% and 4% respectively. 

Are there issues with the level of priority councils are giving adult care - or is this simply a matter of improved efficiency and performance, against levels of demand that are not rising quite as much as we first thought?

 I don't think demand is any different, but criteria are tighter. The councils will get away with spending as little as they possibly can so any savings are not resulting in further expenditure in other care services. Possibly more contracting-out of services to 'lowest cost' companies (possibly at the expense of quality.. certainly the case in one situation I have been involved with). 

Honestly, funding in adult social care is unlikely to be a big vote-winner so the money saved seems to be being diverted. 

I don't think it's as much about improved efficiency as moving the thresholds to 'substantial'