How this survey was conducted and published.
Every number and quote here comes from the same set of survey responses, captured at a fixed point in time. Once the site goes live, nothing on it changes — what you see is exactly what stakeholders sent in.
The 2026 Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council Stakeholder Survey collected 341 responses across 35 questions — a mix of multi-select concerns, 1-to-5 satisfaction ratings for 14 city services, open-ended free-text fields, demographic questions, and an optional testimonial-consent field.
It was distributed to stakeholders within the GWNC boundary (portions of Council Districts 5 and 13) through GWNC’s email newsletter, committee meetings, and neighbor-to-neighbor sharing. Anyone who lives, works, owns property, or owns a business inside the boundary could respond.
Data for this microsite was frozen on 2026-06-17. The raw response workbook sits in a repository that GWNC retains; this site renders a selection of aggregations and consented quotes from it.
- Counts of each concern, overall and per geographic area.
- 1–5 satisfaction distributions for each city service, overall and per geographic area.
- Keyword-matched extracts from free-text location callouts, shown on maps as approximate pins and/or in ranked lists.
- Consented testimonials — shown only where the respondent explicitly agreed to public sharing, attributed with first name + last initial per survey wording.
- Demographic breakdowns at the overall level (age, language, race/ethnicity).
The “In your own words, what are the top one to three issues you would like GWNC to address” question received 304 non-empty responses. To represent those responses on each committee page, we read all 304 and hand-defined a small set of recurring themes per committee — five to eight per committee, derived from the actual language stakeholders used.
Each theme is a list of word-boundary phrases that, if any one appears in a response, counts the response as touching that theme. Word-boundary matching means “tree” never matches inside “street” and “park” never matches inside “parking”; proper nouns like “Hancock Park” are masked out before matching so they do not register as park mentions. Themes are routed to committees editorially per the GWNC Primary Jurisdictions doc — not by raw keyword routing — so homelessness sits wholly with Public Safety & Quality of Life, development-attached parking sits with Land Use, and so on.
A response can touch more than one theme, so per-theme counts do not sum to 304. Every quote rendered alongside a theme is verbatim, run through the same PII scrubber used elsewhere, drawn only from respondents who granted testimonial consent, and attributed as first name + last initial + geographic area per the survey wording. The full theme list and the patterns that define them live in the project repository for review.
- Email addresses — collected in the survey only to de-duplicate responses; never rendered on this site and never bundled into the static data files.
- Full names — reduced to first name + last initial, and only on responses where the respondent ticked testimonial consent. Non-consented names are dropped.
- Individual survey rows — the site exposes aggregations, not the raw response table.
- PII inside free-text fields — phone numbers, street-specific addresses that name a household, and email addresses are redacted by a scrubber before the quote is published.
If you see a quote or a location detail on this site that you believe identifies a specific household or person, please contact GWNC and we will remove it immediately.
- Response volume is uneven across geographic areas. Fremont Place and Country Club Heights returned zero responses in 2026 — the Outreach committee page treats that as a finding, not a gap we silently patch.
- The outer GWNC boundary on every map is the authoritative polygon from the LA City Clerk Neighborhood Councils dataset.
- Committee-to-concern mapping is editorial. Several concerns (street & sidewalk maintenance, homelessness, affordability) cross committee boundaries; we surface them where stakeholders most often framed them, not where a city-agency org chart would put them.