It’s understandable that state legislators want to protect the jobs of Greensburg residents, but that seems like a poor reason to block an audit of a sexual offender treatment program that is expected to cost the state $13.4 million this year.

The costly program, which is housed at Larned State Hospital, has been controversial because it holds sexual offenders beyond their original prison sentences. The cost of the program also has ballooned by about five times since 2003.

The goal of the treatment program was to protect the public from repeat crimes by sexual offenders who were released from prison. Now, however, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the program and whether it is accomplishing its intended purpose.

The questions seem worth investigating, but Kansas legislators last week defeated a move that would require an audit of the program. Perhaps there were good reasons for that decision, but comments by a couple of legislators seemed to miss the mark. House Majority Leader Dennis McKinney, D-Greensburg, opposed the audit because the program “protects the public and it provides economic development for Larned.”

Rep. Eber Phelps, D-Hays, added that many of the employees of the treatment program are from Greensburg, which was hit by a devastating tornado last year. “I don’t think we need to put them through this type of anguish and have them worry about whether they are going to have their job,” he said.

As we said, the concern of McKinney and Phelps is understandable. No one wants to complicate the lives of those recovering from the Greensburg tornado, and no one wants to release sexual offenders too early and expose the public to greater jeopardy. But the program in question is neither a jobs initiative nor an economic development project. It is a treatment program for sexual offenders. It’s great that it gives jobs to residents of the Larned area, but it also is a very costly program from which the state should expect significant benefit.

An audit of the program would help determine how well the program is working and whether it should be continued, expanded or changed in other ways to better serve the state. Declining to answer serious questions about the program because of local economic concerns, however, is a disservice to state taxpayers who are providing the funding.