I think that Title IX's primary purpose in the cases of sexual misconduct is acting as a legal shield for universities and schools and does NOT work in the best interests of individuals it is supposed to serve. I'm talking from the perspective of publicly funded college, in the context of sexual misconduct by the way. Not sure how it works for high school and earlier.
Basically by going to your local Title IX office instead of police, you are agreeing to let the situation be taken care of by an anonymous panel of students and faculty instead of through the legal process. Once the panel takes it on, it's no longer public - the entire process is completely hush-hush until a verdict is reached and even if a party is eventually found responsible, the worst that can happen is they are expelled.
The primary issue in my view is that the University has every incentive to keep the process private, internal and out of the press. Thus actually actionable crimes may be swept under the rug (and have been). While the Title IX officers are obligated to inform you of your right to call the police, the unspoken implication is there that this isn't really necessary, because Title IX will protect you.
During the process you'll need to stand in front of a panel of your peers and faculty (misconduct board) and communicate to them the details about your assault. Your attacker will also be there. So rather than talking about sensitive issues with social workers, police (aka trained professionals) you have to work with people who have maybe a few hours of training in "misconduct".
Ultimately it can take months or even years and during that time the school is obligated to continue to educate both parties (if it's a student-student case) meaning you may still have to go to class with your attacker.
Title IX does preserve the existence of women's sports and for that it is valuable. But it has been used/interpreted in very weird ways subsequently, mostly due to the difficulty of passing new laws in our political system.