Compare white politicians to black poliricians snd see what you come up with.I'd want to see what happens to these numbers if we control for poverty rates, that is, if we compare a poor black to a poor white and a wealthy black to a wealthy white. I have a very hard time believing that if you compare black medical doctors in America to white medical doctors, you will find a higher crime rate among the black doctors. I know personally and closely at least four black doctors I can think of, and I don't think any of them is any more likely to commit a crime, be unemployed, or have unwed pregnant daughters than their white counterparts. Take for instance black kids adopted by wealthy white families - I doubt they'd have a higher school dropout rate than their white counterparts, except in cases where they might have suffered some sort of pre-adoption damage such as malnourishment early in life affecting brain development - which wouldn't be due to their skin color but rather to parental poverty.
I believe that the vast majority of the above stats is driven by poverty and other social ills rather than the amount of pigment in someone's skin. I certainly don't think that having that pigment in itself and independently of socioeconomic barriers makes someone more prone to criminal behavior. Melanin in the skin, that I know, doesn't go into certain brain cells and cause people to turn into raging criminal beasts.
So, while I see the good intentions in your post, I'd address the problem, if possible, without focusing on race. I'd hope for investors, educators, society in general, etc., to offer good jobs, good role modeling, good opportunities, good health care, good nutrition, good education to the POOR in America independently of race rather than to the black in America. When you focus on the recipient's race, you are in a sense implying that his/her race is what is causing the problem, and not the disadvantaged socioeconomic issues.
See, you are prescribing a socioeconomic solution (investors, etc.) so you need to acknowledge that the problem you are identifying is a socioeconomic one, not a skin color one. If the skin color were the determinant factor (I mean, if due to some crazy, inexistent biology that would only be believable in a sci-fi film, the melanin in someone's skin were the causal factor for the criminal behavior), no monetary investment would change that - by throwing money and good jobs upon that person you'd only produce a higher level criminal.
Tissue compatibility studies have shown that the human species doesn't actually possess races in the biological sense, since sometimes when you're white and you need a kidney transplant, your black neighbor might be a better donor than your white co-worker. It's been shown that the amount of melanin in one's skin is a minor cosmetic evolutionary trait linked to the origins of the human species in climates rich in sun rays, which is literally only skin deep and much less important in terms of biological identity than other markers such as tissue subtypes.
Thinking that being black *in itself* independently of all the other socioeconomic factors is what makes someone prone to criminal behavior is a severely misguided and ignorant idea. If we as a society started by recognizing such a basic scientific fact, maybe we'd seek the real solutions to the real socioeconomic problems instead of focusing on race all the time.
Given that our society doesn't seem to place a big value on scientific evidence (see for example the politically charged panic around Ebola which is a non-airborne virus that has a really hard time spreading in a country that possesses a decent public health system and decent isolation capacities and has killed virtually ZERO Americans while the flu generates no politically charged panic and kills 30,000 Americans every single year), I'm not holding my breath that the simple scientific facts I referred to will have any impact on this conversation, but one can only hope.