Sample language for the documents a lottery program needs and almost nobody publishes. Each template is starting text: fill the brackets, delete what doesn't apply, and have counsel review anything that becomes policy. Every template downloads as an editable Word file (free account required).
The public notice template lives in the Waitlist Opening Toolkit; this page holds everything else. Written to the federal HCV framework: the structure transfers to public housing, LIHTC, tribal, and municipal programs, but the governing documents differ.
1. Admission policy language for random selection
Download as Word (.docx) (free with an AuditDraw account)
Federal rules require that your written policy state the selection system you actually use: a lottery is permitted only if the plan says so (24 CFR § 982.202(d), § 982.207(a)(1)). This is sample text for the selection section of an Administrative Plan or ACOP. Choose one ordering variant (tiers or weights) and delete the other. They produce different lists from identical pools, and mixing them without explicit language is how the most consequential policy drafting error in lottery administration happens.
Core language
Selection from the Waiting List. When the number of applications exceeds the number of available [units / vouchers / positions], [Agency] will order applicants by random drawing. The drawing will be conducted after the application period closes. The order of submission within the application period will not affect selection order.
The drawing will be conducted using a random process suitable for decisions subject to audit, and [Agency] will retain records sufficient to demonstrate, after the fact, what data entered the drawing, what order resulted, when the drawing occurred, and that the results have not been altered. [Optional: The drawing may be conducted by a qualified independent third party with no interest in the outcome, in which case the third party's records will be retained as part of [Agency]'s files.]
Variant A: preference tiers
Applicants qualifying for the preferences stated in this plan will be grouped into tiers as follows: [define tiers, e.g., Tier 1: applicants qualifying for (preference); Tier 2: all other applicants]. All applicants within a higher tier will be placed on the waiting list ahead of all applicants in lower tiers. Within each tier, order will be determined by random drawing.
Variant B: weighted entries
Applicants qualifying for the preferences stated in this plan will receive additional entries in the drawing as follows: [e.g., applicants qualifying for (preference) will be entered three times; all other applicants will be entered once]. Additional entries increase the likelihood of an earlier position but do not guarantee placement ahead of any other applicant. All entries are drawn in a single drawing.
Shared clauses
Duplicate applications. If a household submits more than one application during an application period, [Agency] will [retain only the most recent submission / retain only the first submission], determined by [submission timestamp]. This rule will be applied uniformly to all households and stated in the public notice.
Records. [Agency] will retain the drawing record (including the applicant file as it existed at the close of the application period, the complete draw order, the processing log, and a version with personally identifiable information removed) for at least three years, or longer where program rules or pending matters require.
Review notes: the tier/weight choice is the substantive policy decision: the mechanics and the fair housing analysis differ, and the distinction matters more than it looks. Whichever variant you adopt must match what your notices say and what your drawings actually do. Policy amendments follow your plan-amendment process, typically including board adoption.
2. Board memo: engaging a neutral third party
Download as Word (.docx) (free with an AuditDraw account)
For the program manager who needs board or director approval to have drawings run independently. Vendor-neutral by design: fill in whoever you're proposing.
TO: [Board of Commissioners / Executive Director] FROM: [Name, title] DATE: [date] RE: Independent processing of waiting list drawings
Recommendation. That [Agency] engage a qualified independent third party to conduct random drawings for waiting list openings and unit lotteries, beginning with [the upcoming opening / program].
Background. When applications exceed available [units/vouchers], our adopted policy orders applicants by random drawing. The drawing itself is straightforward; demonstrating its integrity afterward is not. Results can be questioned by applicants, advocates, auditors, or the press (sometimes years later), and the question is never whether staff acted in good faith. It is whether the record proves the results are the ones the drawing produced.
The gap. Our current method [describe: e.g., a spreadsheet randomization run by staff] produces results but not durable evidence. The files can be edited without trace, the process and its records are controlled by the same organization whose fairness they would need to establish, and reconstructing proof after a challenge arrives is [difficult / not possible].
What independent processing changes. A third party with no stake in the outcome conducts the drawing and returns a permanent record: the complete draw order, timestamped logs, a public-safe version for publication and records requests, and verification that the files have not been altered since. Because the record is generated outside [Agency]'s control, it answers the objection no internal process can fully answer.
Cost and procurement. [Vendor] charges [pricing]. For our typical [N]-entry drawing this is approximately [$X], within [staff purchasing authority / small purchase limits], requiring [a purchase order / no formal procurement]. Applicant data handling: [summarize vendor's data practices, e.g., encryption, retention, destruction].
Alternatives considered. Continuing in-house with improved documentation (retains the self-verification problem); commercial lottery software run by staff (improves process, record remains under our control); independent processing (recommended).
Requested action. Approval to engage [vendor] for [scope], at a cost not to exceed [$Y] per [drawing / year].
Review notes: the alternatives paragraph is deliberately honest: boards trust memos that name real alternatives. Fill the cost paragraph with actual numbers; if the total sits under your purchasing authority, say so plainly, since that often decides the question.
3. Privacy-safe results publication format
Download as Word (.docx) (free with an AuditDraw account)
The published version of lottery results: every applicant can find themselves; nobody else is exposed. Prepare it at the same moment as the full record: redaction under deadline pressure is how PII gets released.
[Agency Name]: [Program] Waiting List Drawing Results Drawing conducted: [date]. Applications entered: [N]. Positions drawn: all [N].
The list below shows every application entered in the drawing, identified by application number only, in the order drawn. Find the application number from your confirmation [email / letter / receipt] to locate your position.
A position on this list is not an offer of housing. Applicants will be contacted in list order as [units/vouchers] become available; this may take [months / years], and [Agency] cannot predict when any position will be reached. There is no fee at any point in this process, and no person or organization can improve your position for payment.
Draw position Application number [Preference tier, if applicable] 1 [number] 2 [number] [Optional, where a signed record exists: The authenticity of these results can be independently verified at [verification address] using the certificate number [number].]
For questions or accommodations: [contact block].
What never appears in the published version: names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, household composition, income data, or anything that lets a reader connect a position to a person. If preference tiers are shown, confirm tier labels alone can't identify anyone (a tier of one person is an identification).
4. Applicant status letters
Download as Word (.docx) (free with an AuditDraw account)
Letter 1: position notification
Send to every applicant, including those far down the list. An applicant told their position understands their situation; one who hears nothing calls repeatedly and tells others the process was opaque.
Dear [Applicant name],
Your application ([application number]) was entered in the [Agency] [program] waiting list drawing conducted on [date]. A total of [N] applications were entered.
Your position on the waiting list is [position] of [N].
Applicants are contacted in list order as [units/vouchers] become available. This can take [a realistic range; do not understate it], and we cannot predict when your position will be reached. You do not need to do anything now. Please keep your contact information current with us by [method]: applicants we cannot reach when their position comes up may be removed under our written policy.
The full results are published, by application number only, at [address]. Applying and remaining on this list is free; no one can improve your position for payment.
This letter confirms your position in the drawing. It is not an offer of housing and does not guarantee assistance.
[Contact block; accessible-format and language-assistance line.]
Letter 2: duplicate application resolution
Send when a household's duplicate entries were resolved under your stated policy, so the record shows the rule was applied uniformly, and the household isn't surprised later.
Dear [Applicant name],
During the [program] application period, we received more than one application from your household. As stated in the public notice, [Agency]'s policy is to [retain only the most recent submission / retain only the first submission]. Accordingly, your application [retained application number], submitted [date/time], was entered in the drawing, and [removed application number(s)] [was/were] not.
This did not affect your household's chance of selection: each household is entered [once / according to the preferences stated in our policy] regardless of how many applications it submits.
[Position information if the drawing has occurred, or reference to the position notification letter.]
[Contact block; accessible-format and language-assistance line.]
Review notes: the "did not affect your chances" sentence assumes your de-duplication happens before the drawing, which it should (why). If your policy differs, rewrite rather than delete; this letter exists to prevent the appeal, not answer it.
All templates are starting text, not legal documents. Anything adopted as policy follows your amendment process and belongs in front of counsel first. Citations are to federal HCV regulations; other programs' frameworks differ.