Because the 1996 welfare law prohibits states from providing a variety of benefits to anyone who is in violation of his or her probation or parole, the definitions of "probation," "parole," and "in violation" are critical. Federal TANF regulations do not define these terms; instead, they leave it to the states to do so.

Clearly defining what constitutes a parole or probation violation, as well as the resulting period of ineligibility for benefits, has two major advantages. First, a narrow interpretation of "violation" - limited to violations adjudicated by a court or administrative hearing - would avoid confusion about whether nonprosecuted, technical violations should lead to a loss of benefits. Such a definition would also allow states to continue to use alternative-to-incarceration programs, such as alcohol and drug treatment, for those parolees or probationers with technical violations. For example, a state could choose to allow a person in a drug treatment program to remain in the program and continue receiving the benefits that fund some or all of his or her participation in the program, even if he or she has technically violated a condition of his or her parole by testing positive for drugs. Second, clarifying that the period of ineligibility ends when the violator returns to compliance would ensure that benefits are available quickly and appropriately to support treatment or other needed services.