I've kept up my own spreadsheet to try and track things, and occasionally done some light social media sleuthing to see if any of the kids have resurfaced. Part of the problem with the information we see is that for Bakersfield, most of the info comes from the media. Sometimes they update if a child (particularly non-teenagers) has been located, but mostly they don't.
According to
NamUs, California is one of the states that requires the use of NamUs for missing persons, and LE agencies are also required to add missing persons to a
Missing Persons System. I imagine for NamUs at least, there is some sort of time window--eg. they don't need to add the person for 30 days, so some people never get added because they are no longer missing. I'm sure it's the case, but it's really horrible to think that there are non-missing kids who are still listed as missing. That means that no one has been paying close enough attention to those listings to correct it. While we have bad data (because it comes from media reports), LE definitely shouldn't.
I don't want to sound like an LE downer because that's not what I mean here, but I don't think those big child-finding operations are really notable or impressive. I'm happy they're doing them and I'm glad the children are found, but being able to find 200 kids in 6 weeks means those kids were findable. It's basically what is referred to in some lines of work as a sprint or time box--you're setting aside specific time to dial in on a specific thing. If anything, it says something about the way resources are allocated to missing children cases.