March 2, 2026 Submissions
General Expert Panel comments
Comments made by the panel during its assessment of applications submitted to the March 2, 2026 deadline are outlined below. Please note that these comments provide a summary of the panel's assessment and do not necessarily relate to every application submitted to this deadline. The panel does not provide individual comments.
Project description
- The panel wished to extend their appreciation for all the work that applicants did, and to encourage them to continue pursuing their work regardless of the granting decisions.
- The panel appreciated project descriptions that were clearly structured, concise (approximately 3-5 pages), and articulated a strong central objective.
- The panel valued applications that outlined concrete steps in the creation process, moving beyond a narrative summary to describe the project from both production management and dramaturgical perspectives.
- For research projects, the panel valued clarity around the scope of inquiry, including a summary of questions that would be asked, and what the intended outcomes or end goals of the research would be. It was also helpful when applicants identified methods they would use to document their findings, and how this would support the work they would create in the future.
- For projects with sensitive subject matter, the panel appreciated when applicants clearly described community care practices, including strategies and resources to support the creative team and audience in engaging safely with the work.
- The panel appreciated when applicants explained why they were the appropriate artist(s) to tell the proposed stories, particularly for projects with personal, culturally-specific, or community-based subject matter.
- For projects involving diverse characters or communities, the panel valued approaches that demonstrated thoughtful representation, including ensuring that those characters or subjects were portrayed with agency and their own voice.
- For projects involving art forms that may appear tangential to theatre/performing arts (e.g., podcasting, interdisciplinary or unconventional projects), the panel prioritized proposals that made a compelling case for alignment with the theatre/performing arts sector and demonstrated benefit to that community.
- For those applying for funding to support training opportunities, priority was given to applicants who were able to articulate the outcomes/impacts they anticipated that program would have on their artistic development, and the theatre ecology in Alberta. In other words, what will you do with these skills once you have learned them?
- The panel appreciated when applicants provided sufficient context to ensure their projects were understandable to assessors who may not be familiar with the applicant’s practice, community, or region. For projects adapted from existing work, a clear summary of the source material was especially helpful.
- Projects with longer timelines (12 months or more) benefitted from clearly articulated activities across the full duration. This was especially important when subsistence costs made up a significant portion of the budget.
- Panelists found that applications which focused on a specific phase of a project, (as opposed to larger multi-phased projects) were often clearer in scope and feasibility. For larger or multi-year projects, the panel expected applicants to break the work into viable phases and to demonstrate experience delivering projects of comparable scale in the past or evidence that they would have support from other collaborators who have.
- The panel appreciated when all artists involved were clearly identified by name. Where participation was not yet confirmed, naming potential collaborators (with their permission) strengthened applications.
- For projects adapting other intellectual properties, the panel appreciated when applicants made transparent that legal ramifications were considered as part of their proposal. If letters or contracts were available, including these helped build confidence in the project’s success, as well.
- Applicants seeking AFA support for out-of-province activities were expected to clearly explain why work outside Alberta was necessary and what added-value it offered compared to undertaking the work in-province.
- The panel acknowledged that Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools can support accessibility in grant writing. However, applications that appeared overly reliant on AI raised concerns. Transparency about whether and how AI tools were used was valued.
Budget
- The panel strongly emphasized the importance of fair compensation for artists. Applications were strengthened when applicants referenced professional industry standards as published by Canada Actors’ Equity Association, Playwrights Guild of Canada, Associated Designers of Canada, etc.
- The panel noted that some applicants waived their own fees in favour of other expenses on their application. They wanted to encourage that all artists, including the lead applicant, should be compensated, especially if the full allowable grant amount was not reached.
- The panel appreciated consistency between the project description and the GATE budget. Discrepancies between these made the project difficult to confidently assess.
- Providing context for expense calculations was valuable. Quotes or invoices were especially helpful for larger or specialized expenses.
- For projects including ticket sales as revenue, the panel appreciated clear explanations of how estimates were calculated, along with contingency plans should those sales not be realized.
- When projected ticket sales were not intended to fund project expenses, the panel p-referred that these figures be described anecdotally in the project description rather than included in the GATE revenue form, where they could incorrectly offset AFA requested amounts.
- The panel recommended that applicants consult with AFA staff prior to submission where possible, as some budgets reflected misunderstandings about how GATE offsets non-AFA revenues against requested amounts.
Support Materials
- The panel appreciated when applicants included cover pages explaining the relevance of their support materials, particularly when materials were not directly tied to the proposed project. For example, if providing past samples of work, detail how they demonstrate similar activities that will occur during the proposed project.
- The panel appreciated when applicants included samples of work that demonstrated what the proposed work would look like. Support materials such as images of past work, video clips, or mood boards were especially helpful in communicating this context.
- For established artists, applications were strengthened when resumes were provided for all collaborators, especially when those resumes demonstrated relevant experience in the roles proposed. Including production details beside each experience was expected (e.g., role, company, venue, dates.)
- For emerging artists, panelists appreciated when clear artistic statements were provided outlining their intentions within their field. Letters of support from mentors or other artists who could endorse them were also helpful.
- For projects involving video submissions, the panel appreciated when applicants edited the footage to highlight the most relevant content, avoiding extraneous material.
- The panel appreciated letters of support that clearly described who the writer of the letter was and the context for their relationship to the applicant as part of their endorsement.
- For writing based projects, the panel preferred excerpts specific to the proposed project over full scripts or unrelated past work.
- For projects that involved collaborations with other organizations, (e.g., theatre support companies) it was helpful when letters of support from those organizations were attached to show that there was an established relationship and vested interest in the project.
- The panel noted that some applications included web links that were inaccessible or broken at the time of assessment. The panel appreciated when applicants instead provided web-based content as PDFs directly uploaded into the attachments section.
- Submitting attachments as PDFs rather than Word documents was appreciated, as formatting was preserved.