Methods of accountability are presented in considering the Reagan administration plan to consolidate 84 federal health, education and social service grants into six block grant areas and to cut overall funding. After matching aspects of public criticism with proposal objectives, a rationale is developed for building elements of accountability into grant legislation to track the progress of the administration proposal, once implemented, or to determine whether there is achievement of administration objectives. Accountability to Congress will require empirical evidence: (1) whether national objectives will survive in block grants; (2) program effectiveness; (3) integrity against waste, fraud and abuse; (4) and management costs will improve or worsen under decentralized block grants. It is suggested that block grants may not answer all the criticisms of current grant procedure. Program integrity and equitability may decrease in the loss of uniformity and coordination. Federal, state, and local accountability is called for to achieve grant objectives and funding policy consistency. Eighteen elements of accountability are presented which Congress may use in determining achievement of program and national objectives. (CM)