Patricia Hewitt's mathematical inconsistencies?

Apparently, Patrica Hewitt has just announced, sorry "hailed" £2m of spending to increase access to therapy for people suffering from anxiety and depression. This is following the "success of the psychological therapies pilot programme in Doncaster and Newham". Not surprising people in Newham needed therapy, they all support West Ham.

Anyway, joking aside about Iain's beloved team, the extra whopping £2 million is going to ten new pathfinder projects. Split that down and it's peanuts really, and as the Culture Secretary said, £100m is not really alot, so £2m must be nothing by even their own standards.

However, it gets more amusing when you look at the Notes to Editor section of the press release. Point 2 says,

The pilots will provide real evidence of the benefits that can be gained from increasing access to psychological therapies, both to the individual and to the local economy. The first two pilot demonstration sites were given £3.7 million funding over two years from the Department of Health.

So, two pilots received £3.7m over two years, now ten more pilots are going to share £2m. It's not difficult to spot some strange mathematical inconsistencies going on there. Factor in inflation and they're getting even less.

The question arises though, if we accept the first two pilots were a success, and if we accept that the new spending, sorry, it's called investment now, is correct. Where did the extra money in the first two pilots go? Or maybe this is actually a notional cut being spun as an increase?