Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to end state refugee resettlement office meets strong pushback from DHS, lawmakers and advocates
Summary
HB 1706 would repeal New Hampshire’s state‑administered refugee resettlement program and close the DHHS office that manages federal refugee‑assistance funds. DHHS and municipal officials said the program is 100% federally funded, helps integrate arrivals, and ending state administration would forfeit federal grants and disrupt services; opposition framed the bill as costly to local coordination and potentially harmful to vulnerable refugees.
Committee members heard competing testimony on HB 1706, which would abolish New Hampshire’s state refugee resettlement office and forbid DHHS from accepting or using refugee resettlement funds.
The bill’s introducer argued that federal refugee resettlement places significant strain on municipal services — especially in Manchester — and that nonprofit resettlement organizations (NSOs) receive large compensation while local communities shoulder housing, translation, schooling and health burdens. The sponsor urged the state to stop enabling arrivals by closing the state office.
State and local officials strongly disputed that characterization. Associate Commissioner Ann Landry, Director Ruben Hampton, and other DHHS staff explained the program is 100% federally funded and that the Office of Refugee Resettlement prefers state administration because only state‑run programs qualify for the largest federal service grant. DHS said dissolving the state office would not prevent refugees from arriving but would forfeit about $1.1 million in federal funding and would create a less coordinated transition to NGO administration — increasing short‑term strain on municipalities.
Lawmakers from Manchester and representatives who work with immigrant communities described refugees as legally vetted arrivals who contribute economically and civically. Several pointed to the humanitarian nature of resettlement and said well‑run state coordination reduces, rather than amplifies, municipal costs.
Committee members asked technical questions about monitoring, fraud prevention and funding. DHHS staff described audit and monitoring processes for service providers and stressed multiple oversight layers from federal affiliates and state review. No final vote was taken; the committee recessed with members indicating they would examine associated fiscal impacts and oversight mechanisms before advancing policy changes.
