Using statistics to define and understand human behaviour is nice in theory but ignores a lot of variables which won't show up in your data.
For example does it highlight the ethnic neighbourhoods which were flourishing, creating jobs, businesses, top schools and comparatively high incomes - only to be burned to the ground by neighbouring white neighbours? That then keeps the status quo and doesn't allow blacks and other minorities to create their own wealth.
What about the Ronald Reagan era and the introduction of drugs in targeted communities? Which not only creates a cycle of abuse, but often times removes a parent or both parents from households forcing kids to grow up not just in poverty but without guidance.
Education funding being directly linked to the affluence of the area in which the school is?
The FBI's illegal activities relating to the Black Panthers, MLK, Malcolm X, James Baldwin and similar organisations and individuals?
I could go on, point is, you can't reduce the construct of racism to data, all the data will show you is a very one dimensional perspective that doesn't take into account human behaviour influenced by racism. I mean you're talking about crime and ethnicity as if there isn't other data that proves racial profiling exists. Then you've got human accounts who have worked in the force who will also tell you the same. But that won't show in statistics, all you'll see is positive reinforcement that crime and ethnicity are linked. That was kind of the point. If you over police any area you'll find all sorts of crime. When you've got people of ethnic minorities getting larger sentences for the same crime as white people, usually drug related.
What you won't see is members of the KKK knowingly hired by police forces. Or judges, lawyers, businessmen being part of the KKK also.
So again while it is not all as it appears on the surface about racism. Using data is a way of minimising the effect of racism, but also the behaviour of humans with regards to racism is very one dimensional.