Jr Hoops

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
932903885
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Glendale, CA, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Amateur Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$162,011
Expenses
$152,067
Assets
$46,836
Liabilities
$13,971

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VEHANS AYVAZI (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • VEHANS AYVAZI (CEO)
  • RAYA AYVAZI (CFO)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to promote personal development through basketball while fostering a supportive environment to install a lifelong love for the game. Jr Hoops is dedicated to putting the fun back into fundamental basketball learning. Our approach revolves around creating a positive and enjoyable experience for young players, regardless of their skill level. Through engaging practices, inclusive games, and a friendly atmosphere, Jr Hoops ensures every child feels valued and excited about their basketball journey.

What it reported doing in 2025

Jr Hoops Recreational Basketball League. Jr Hoops operated a community-based youth basketball league in Glendale and surrounding areas, offering weekly games and practices across four divisions (Future Stars, Youngsters, Rising Stars, and All-Stars) for boys and girls in grades Pre-K through 8th. The program focused on player development, teamwork, and sportsmanship while keeping costs affordable for all families. Jr Hoops also provided scholarships and financial aid to ensure that children from low-income households could participate regardless of their financial situation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.