Published on: July 13, 2026
A Joint NABITA and ATIXA Tip of the Week by Kelly Berkell, J.D.
Institutions are increasingly being evaluated not just on how they respond to incidents, but on whether they had coordinated prevention systems in place before harm occurred. That raises an important question: What do effective violence prevention frameworks look like in K-12 and higher education?
Incidents involving stalking, harassment, relationship violence, sexual misconduct, and other concerning behaviors often require collaboration between Title IX and behavioral assessment and intervention professionals. Yet these teams frequently operate independently rather than in coordination.
My professional focus spans law, public safety, behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM), and Title IX. Through my legal practice in BTAM, my work as a senior research fellow at John Jay College, my teaching in terrorism and homeland security, and my advising of educational institutions and threat assessment teams, I’ve seen how emerging litigation trends and prevention practices are shaping institutional expectations.
During my opening keynote at the 2026 NABITA and ATIXA Joint Annual Conference, I will explore how recent litigation, investigations, and high-profile settlements are establishing a new standard of care for prevention of violence and related harms in educational settings.
An Emerging Standard of Care for Prevention
Effective prevention depends on ongoing reassessment, coordination, and collaboration among behavioral intervention teams, Title IX professionals, student affairs practitioners, law enforcement, and other stakeholders.
When communication breaks down, critical information can become fragmented, causing schools and institutions to miss opportunities to identify patterns, reassess risk, and intervene in a cohesive manner. Professionals are increasingly evaluating not only whether educational institutions facilitated reporting and recognized concerns, but also whether they had coordinated systems in place to assess potential threats and whether they responded before harm occurred. A growing body of legal and legislative developments offers important insight into what institutions may be expected to do to identify potential threats, share information, coordinate interventions, and prevent harm.
Key K-12 and Higher Education Cases
Cleveland v. Taft Union High School, a California appellate court decision, continues to shape nationwide conversations about school threat assessment. Expert witness testimony identified specific shortcomings in the school’s threat assessment process related to collaboration, information sharing, and intervention. As a result, it has become one of the clearest examinations of how a threat assessment process may be evaluated following an act of violence. We will also discuss Zwerner v. Newport News School District, a more recent case illustrating how judges and juries may evaluate an institution’s response to known concerns.
Higher education institutions are likewise facing increasing scrutiny of their prevention and threat management practices. We’ll examine several significant cases and investigations, including the University of Arizona’s response to the murder of Professor Thomas Meixner, the ongoing Goncalves v. Washington State University litigation connected to the University of Idaho murders, and the multimillion-dollar settlement following the murder of University of Utah student-athlete Lauren McCluskey.
While conclusions about the adequacy of prevention efforts depend on the facts and procedural posture of each case, past tragedies in university communities underscore questions familiar to Title IX and behavioral intervention practitioners: What happens if critical information is compartmentalized, and institutional systems fail to connect? How should institutions respond to concerning behaviors? What responsibilities do institutions have when risk or threat signals emerge across offices? These cases offer insight into how prevention efforts, information sharing, and coordinated responses are being evaluated.
Practical Steps: Coordinating Prevention Systems
Rather than treating Title IX and BTAM as unrelated functions, institutions should consider how these systems can work together to support compliance obligations and broader prevention goals. A coordinated approach improves information sharing, strengthens threat assessment, and helps institutions make more informed safety decisions.
My keynote will challenge attendees to think beyond incident response and examine whether their institutions have built the systems, partnerships, and communication practices needed to prevent harm before it occurs. Together, we’ll explore what today’s emerging standard of care means for Title IX professionals, BTAM teams, and institutional leaders, and what practical steps institutions can take to strengthen prevention before the next difficult situation tests their systems.
The new standard of care is not just about how institutions respond after an incident, or even about isolated efforts to prevent violence beforehand. Increasingly, it asks whether institutions built the coordinated systems that could have helped prevent harm. Join me at the 2026 NABITA and ATIXA Joint Annual Conference as we explore how coordinated prevention can strengthen both compliance and safety and what this means for your school, college, or university.