Some interesting research has come across this desk lately.

One recent study found that perhaps half of all parents are paying bills for at least one adult child (over age 24). Other recent research found that folks don't know as much about housing finance as they think they do, that people aren't switching houses as much as they used to, and that renters tend to owe money to creditors.

Let's dive into some of these revelations.

According to a survey by American Consumer Credit Counseling, a national nonprofit that helps consumers with budgeting, financial education and debt management, 41 percent of those polled are providing support for one adult child. Ten percent are supporting two.

The most common type of support was in the form of housing. Either Mom and Dad were providing housing in their own homes, or they were paying for their kids' places. Second on the list was helping adult children with their household bills.

That may be one reason millennials aren't leaving the nest in droves. After all, why turn your back on a good thing? But it's also a factor in why empty nesters aren't moving. Perhaps they can't afford to move if they are still supporting an adult child or two. Or maybe they just don't want to disturb the household situation.

Another reason people aren't buying: the fear of rejection.

According to research from Wells Fargo, nearly two-thirds of the respondents believe -- incorrectly -- that they need a "very good" credit score to qualify. Many lenders are clearing would-be borrowers with less than pristine credit. Otherwise, few houses would change hands.

People are also mistaken in thinking only folks with high incomes can buy a house these days, which three in 10 Wells Fargo survey respondents believe, or that it takes at least 20 percent down, a belief held by 44 percent of respondents.

According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the typical down payment across all segments of the market, not just for people starting out, was 21 percent of the purchase price. But 22 percent of all buyers put down less than 10 percent.

The above findings dovetail nicely into a report from the Census Bureau that shows migration rates -- that is, the share of the population that move within the U.S. -- is half of what it used to be. Between 1984 and 1985, about 20 percent of the population changed places. But in the 2014-15 period, it was 11 percent.

Even more striking is the drop-off in movement among young people age 24-35, who are considered the most mobile age group. Typically, they have completed their education and secured a job; they're forming their own households and eventually marry and have kids.

Between 1999 and 2000, 35 percent of young adults age 20-24 moved elsewhere, as did 27 percent of those age 25-34. But in the 2014-15 period, their migration rates were just 23 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

One reason, perhaps: Renters who have never had a mortgage tend to have lower credit scores and more debt issues that other groups, according to findings from the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

Renters who haven't had a mortgage in the past 16 years are less likely to have credit card debt, but they are more likely to have debt in collections than any other group -- including homeowners with a mortgage, or even renters who have had a home loan in the recent past.

Renters also have the lowest credit scores, which is a worry given the size of the group: some 96 million strong, or nearly 40 percent of all adults in 2015.

Finally, there's this silly bit of research from Zillow that shows homes close to a Trader Joe's tend to appreciate a tad faster than those near a Whole Foods: 148 percent between 1997 and 2014 for T.J.'s vs. 140 percent for Whole Foods. Over the same time frame, the median home grew in value by just 71 percent.

Earlier research from Zillow found that appreciation rates were greater for places near a Starbucks than they were for houses near archrival Dunkin' Donuts.

Murders don't occur solely in "other people's" neighborhoods. Or even "bad" neighborhoods. They happen everywhere.

Last year, in the nice community where I have a winter home, a doctor was bludgeoned to death by two men allegedly hired by her husband.

Every place has a high-profile homicide every once in a while.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), every state experienced homicides in 2014 -- some far more than others. Washington, D.C.'s rate is the highest in the land: 13.72 killings per 100,000 people, with 97 people having been killed in the nation's capital in 2014. California had the highest number of homicides, at 1,813, yet its rate was lower, at 4.63 per 100,000 people.

Louisiana had the next-highest rate at 11.67, followed by Mississippi at 11.41 percent. On the other end of the spectrum, New Hampshire's rate was 1.28 and Massachusetts' was 1.61. Another way to look at it: You are almost 10 times as likely to be a homicide victim in D.C. as you are in New Hampshire.

Statistics like this are interesting, but they are not terribly useful for homebuyers worried about crime, because they don't include neighborhood-level -- or even county-level -- data. And many folks want to know what bad things are happening in the communities they are considering.

In a recent survey by BDX, an online marketing resource for builders (for which I write occasionally), people said the No. 1 thing missing in their real estate web searches are crime figures.

"For me, I want the crime statistics in the area," said a woman named Stacy. "I want to know home burglary information. I know the area where I live now just doesn't feel safe to me, so it's important for my next home to be in a better neighborhood then I am living in now. I want to do more research and not just base (my decision) on price and amenities."

There's good reason for Stacy's interest. Besides the possibility of becoming a victim, property values can plummet when a murder takes place. According to a recent study by Finder.com, a personal finance comparison site, the national housing market loses some $2.3 billion a year in value because of homicides.

"Not only are people creeped out by the thought that someone has been killed," says Finder's Fred Schebesta, "a murder creates a perception that the area is generally less safe and has a high crime rate."

Again, though, Finder's stats are not particularly useful because the numbers aren't local enough. So the question is, how do would-be buyers find what they need to know about crime to make an informed decision?

Fortunately, there are sources. You just have to do some digging.

Start with RealtyTrac's Registered Criminal Offender Risk Index. The index is based on the number of registered criminal offenders -- sex offenders, child predators, kidnappers and violent offenders -- as a percentage of total population in 10,358 ZIP codes. A ZIP code's ratio is then put into one of five categories, ranging from Very High to Very Low.

RealtyTrac found that average home values and home equities were lower in areas with a higher criminal offender index.

"This new index provides concrete evidence that registered criminal offenders pose not only a potential safety risk for homeowners and their families, but also a potential financial risk," said the data company's Daren Blomquist.

The index found that Greenville, South Carolina, had the highest offender index: 73 percent of its homes are located in ZIP codes in the Very High criminal offender category.

Data for the index comes from each state's online criminal offender registry. You can access the registry for your jurisdiction at your state's website.

Unfortunately, most states list only sex offenders. Just a few go beyond that. Montana, for example, also lists violent offenders, while Arkansas and Washington list child kidnappers.

Drilling down -- and for a fee -- you can get a Home Disclosure Report from RealtyTrac (homedisclosure.com), which will not only give you crime stats for a home, but also list local hazards, the property's history, disaster risks and school information. Besides putting your mind at ease -- or setting your antennae to wiggling -- you can use this information as a negotiating tool.

Another source -- also for a fee -- is Homefacts.com, which offers up data on everything RealtyTrac does and more, including where drug labs have been found, the politics of the community you are considering, air quality and the location of such key amenities as banks, hospitals, libraries and fire stations.

This week, it's time to take on a couple of otherwise sacrosanct real estate homilies: The tax deduction for mortgage interest and the commission realty firms charge to sell houses. None of the professionals who earn their livelihoods in the housing sector will like reading this, but here goes anyway.

First, the write-off for interest borrowers pay on their mortgages: Uncle Sam allows us to deduct every penny we pay in mortgage interest, up to $1 million a year. Of course, few people pay that much, but it is part of the tax code nevertheless.

According to 2014 estimates by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the mortgage interest deduction accounted for $72.4 billion in savings for taxpayers. About 34.5 million taxpayers claimed the popular write-off.

But most of that money must have gone to better-heeled taxpayers, because at today's still extremely low loan rates, the write-off is all but useless, at least to folks who purchase modest houses.

This all hinges on how much money you borrow and at what interest rate. The more you borrow and the higher the rate, the more attractive the write-off becomes. But at today's low rates, it may be better to claim the standard $12,600 tax write-off that's available to everyone.

To illustrate, let's look at the average median home price of $288,000 for March, as reported by the Census Bureau. With a typical 5 percent down payment ($14,400), you'd borrow $273,600. And at an interest rate of, say, 4 percent, the monthly payment for principal and interest on a 30-year loan would be $1,306 and change.

In the first year of the loan, you'd pay $10,1856 in interest, so it would be better to claim the standard $12,600 deduction for a couple filing jointly than to itemize.

It's not until the amount borrowed in the above example is somewhere between $317,000 and $318,000 that the better choice is to itemize.

The numbers change as interest rates and borrowed amounts change, but you get the idea. If you expect a big tax break when you are buying your first house, you'd better do the arithmetic ahead of time. Otherwise, you could be in for a shock.

You can find calculators to help with the math all over the internet. I use the calculators at HSH Associates (www.hsh.com), a highly respected mortgage information service based in New Jersey.

Also, it doesn't matter whether you buy a new or an existing house; the calculation is the same. The only thing that may change the equation is your property taxes, which are also deductible.

According to the Joint Committee, 33.6 million taxpayers claimed the property tax deduction, to the tune of $30.2 billion in 2014.

If you want to claim your real estate taxes, you should itemize. Often, the two deductions -- mortgage interest and property taxes -- add up to more than the standard deduction.

And there are many other write-offs -- state income taxes, medical payments, office in the home -- that, all added up, also favor itemizing.

Renters also qualify for the standard deduction, even though they have no mortgage interest or property taxes. But they may have other write-offs that are more than the standard deduction. Most do not, though, which is why renters rarely itemize.

Now, on to real estate commissions: In reality, commissions are always negotiable. But finding a brokerage firm or agent willing to bargain on their fees is all but impossible. There are discount brokerages that charge based on the services they provide, but full-service firms? Forget about it!

At the same time, the brokerage business's main trade group is always trying to get someone else to cut their fees. Just a few weeks ago, Tom Salomone, president of the National Association of Realtors and broker-owner of Real Estate II in Coral Springs, Florida, called on the Federal Housing Administration to reduce the annual insurance premium it charges borrowers who put down less than 20 percent, saying the change will "expand options" for first-time buyers.

But Tobias Peter, a research analyst at the American Enterprise Institute's International Center of Housing Risk, and others at the conservative think tank say cutting the premium would place the mortgage insurance fund at risk of going below its congressional mandate.

Besides, Peter has a better idea, especially since today's market is hamstrung more by a lack of houses for sale than it is of people to buy them.

If NAR would ask its members to slash their slice of the deal by, say, 2 percent, might potential sellers jump at the chance to save $4,000 in commissions on a $200,000 house, or $6,000 on a $300,000 house?

Peter's hypothesis: "Just like any sale brings in new customers, the NAR's sale on commissions would single-handedly boost entry-level supply without driving up prices, as the NAR's calls for credit loosening have done. What is needed is more supply, not more demand."