Okay. This is entirely irrelevant to my point that you originally were replying to that I wouldn't call any number of missing children "acceptable", and that I would be perfectly fine spending money to bring the number lower.

https://childfindofamerica.org/resources/facts-and-stats-missing-children/

I'm okay with spending money to reduce the number of permanently missing, killed, long term abducted, or just about any outcome listed.

Your assumption that different outcomes have the same composition as each other isn't founded.
The very fact that the outcome was different is evidence of different conditions. Contextual evidence made investigators put it in whatever category they did, and I defer to them. Your breakdown ignores that the statistics already account for assumed runaways that never came home.

This is all entirely distinct from the point, which was "there's no number of missing children that's 'okay', and it's okay to spend money to lower the number, and we can actually put together rational spending targets that make sense even for rare circumstances, and if our government isn't in the business of finding lost children then what's the point of any of it?"