Unlocked Labs

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371871086
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
6303475543
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,607,118
Expenses
$2,900,849
Assets
$2,019,423
Liabilities
$168,869

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Haley Shoaf (President)
  • Jessica Hicklin (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Haley Shoaf (President): $151,728 total reported compensation
  • Jessica Hicklin (Vice President): $151,728 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

With digital infrastructure making opportunity accessible, progress visible, and success measurable, we can create a justice system that works for everyone. At Unlocked Labs, we are building that infrastructure—turning proven solutions into practice, enabling and empowering a justice system that prioritizes rehabilitation, upholds accountability.

What it reported doing in 2025

As function of our UnlockedEd prison education initiative, Unlocked Labs setup computer labs in 4 prisons in 2022, 2 of which were internet connected. Additionally, we added coding programs to two prisons as well.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 61
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 70% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.