Riley was not made accountable during his parole and was not intensively supervised, even though he was the type of high-risk offender the intensive parole program was designed to supervise. The compromise of program standards led to Riley's parole failure. In their response, the officials misrepresent the number of contacts Riley had with his parole officer. The officials count as multiple officer-parolee contacts extended single face-to-face office visits with followup telephone contacts. The quality of the contacts did not constitute intensive supervision parole, since the officer did not exercise a detailed management of the parolee's movements, associations, and use of time.