The executive summary in the news release makes it look like the Title IX office could share w/ HCO information that was given to them by victims or about victims. However, from the report, it appears that the only time Title IX would share information with HCO would be when the actions relate to the respondents (i.e., the accused) to a Title IX investigation.

As noted multiple times throughout the full report, Title IX implementation has been a problem for nearly every university, public, private, religious, secular. One of the main areas of contention is that Universities have an affirmative obligation to investigate accusations of sexual assault, set up an internal fact-finding tribunal, and discipline accordingly. Most universities don't have the ability to do this, or the institutional knowledge or acumen to set up a hearing and tribunal for punishing students. Ironically, this is one area where BYU is actually a 'leader' in the higher ed field*: They have decades of experience of setting up extrajudicial proceedings, and the bureaucratic know-how and administration to get it done. Because of years of punishing students for wearing too many earrings or not shaving frequently enough, they are now uniquely positioned to lead out on certain aspects of Title IX implementation related to discipline and punishment.

*Its entirely likely that when administrators and legislators see what kind of bureaucracy is actually needed to implement Title IX as indicated in the Dear Colleague letter, there will be more movement away from those kinds of affirmative obligations placed upon universities to act as police, judge, and jury in sexual assault cases. Basically, they'll realize they don't want to have to be the way BYU has been all along.