Evaluating Iris Scanning Technology to Link Data Related to Homelessness and Other Disadvantaged Populations with Mental Illness and Addiction

  • Cheryl ForchukEmail author
  • Lorie Donelle
  • Miriam Capretz
  • Fatima Bukair
  • John Kok
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10898)


The overall objectives of this research were to assess the functionality of iris scanning technology in a community setting and to evaluate the acceptability to shelter clients of using iris scanning as a form of identification. In order to assess the feasibility of implementing iris scanners in a shelter setting, the research team documented the number of people who agreed to be scanned, the number of people who declined, and the number of successful scans completed. The research team collected 200 scans over the course of 3 visits. A second iris scan was requested of 50 individuals to allow the research team to assess whether the technology accurately identifies someone over a period of time. The results indicate that most people found the technology acceptable, and that the number identifier was consistent over repeated scans.


Iris scanning Biometrics Public acceptability Mental illness Addiction Homelessness Identification 



Would like to acknowledge the Salvation Army for facilitating the research environment. Also, we appreciate the commitment of the research assistants for data collection and auditing to make sure the quality of research is assured. Finally, we would like to thank the participants for their voluntary participation. We would also like to acknowledge the granting agency for making the funding available.

Conflicts of Interest:

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Gaetz, S., Dej, E., Richter, T., Redman, M.: The State of Homelessness in Canada 2016. Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press, Toronto (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stark, L.R.: Barriers to health care for homeless people. In: Jahiel, R.I. (ed.) Homelessness: a Prevention-Oriented Approach. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hwang, S.W., Windrim, P.M., Svoboda, T.J., Sullivan, W.F.: Physician payment for the care of homeless people. CMAJ 163, 170–171 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crowe, C., Hardill, K.: Nursing research and political change: the street health report. Can Nurse. 89, 21–24 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin, A.K., Donovan, K.P.: New surveillance technologies and their publics: a case of biometrics. Public Underst. Sci. 24, 842–857 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moody, J.: Public perceptions of biometric devices: the effect of misinformation on acceptance and use. IISIT. 1, 753–761 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latman, N.S., Herb, E.: A field study of the accuracy and reliability of a biometric iris recognition system. Sci. Justice 53, 98–102 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jain, A.K., Ross, A., Prabhakar, S.: An introduction to biometric recognition. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 14, 4–20 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown, C.L.: Health-care data protection and biometric authentication policies: comparative culture and technology acceptance in china and in the united states. Rev. Policy Res. 29, 141–159 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheryl Forchuk
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lorie Donelle
    • 2
  • Miriam Capretz
    • 2
  • Fatima Bukair
    • 2
  • John Kok
    • 2
  1. 1.Lawson Health Research InstituteLondonCanada
  2. 2.Western UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations