In the more than a decade since state officials ramped up government efforts to manage Hawaii’s homelessness crisis, no single approach has emerged as the sole solution.

That’s because there is no such thing: Experts have agreed, and underscored repeatedly, that the homeless population is diverse, with each sub-group facing a varied combination of challenges.

That’s why it’s disconcerting to see state lawmakers seemingly jettison that notion and conclude that funneling homeless services funds in the state budget toward one solution — “ohana zones” — is the answer. It is not, and it could drain funds from other programs that have been a proven success.

At issue is House Bill 1900, the budget request measure representing Gov. David Ige’s spending plan to take the state through June 30, 2019.

The bill comes up for another hearing today. Lawmakers should make sure it continues to underwrite strategies such as “Housing First” aid that paves the way to rehousing people on the streets, and short-term housing subsidies that keep some families from falling into homelessness in the first place.

This means the leadership must restore the $8 million in funding it slashed from such programs and redirected toward ohana zones, which is the brand by which “tent cities” or “safe zones” are now known locally. HB 1900 seeks $30 million to create the zones — an uncertain number, and in unspecified locations.

Ohana zones would be formalized encampments, with a modicum of security, sanitation and utilities support. The general idea is that given the intractable shortage of affordable housing statewide, the zones at least would provide some stability for homeless households that otherwise are subjected to “sweeps” from public spaces.

This issue came to a head recently when the Ige administration contemplated sweeping a long- established encampment called Pu‘uhonua o Waianae, which amounts to an ohana zone that became established organically years ago. The governor has backed away from the plan and is allowing the makeshift community to remain in place, near the Waianae Small Boat Harbor, for now.

Long-term, that won’t solve the problem for the 200-plus residents. And by no means should legislators take that as a signal that Pu‘uhonua should be replicated all over the islands as a matter of state policy.

First of all, there’s no clear plan for how to go about creating these ohana zones. Settling on sites for a homeless encampment, no matter what friendly-sounding brand is attached to it, will be difficult.

Realizing that, House Speaker Scott Saiki said he’s envisioning something more groomed than an unkempt gathering of tents reminiscent of what’s seen in the brush within more rural areas, or right on city sidewalks. What he hopes will appear are more residential-looking camps, not unlike the city’s new Kahauiki Village off Nimitz Highway.

Kahauiki Village had help from generous private partners as well as the free state land, and replicating that combination won’t be easy. And the expense can be monumental.

The more conventional ohana zone more closely resembles Camp Kikaha in Hawaii County, which closed down. Even in its simplicity, the camp’s staffing and other costs had drained resources, and the exemption from fire codes and other laws expired.

Done properly, safe zones may ease the growing pressure of Hawaii’s homelessness crisis. But rather than skipping past the planning phase, lawmakers ought to pilot the ohana zone concept before committing so much money to it.

Saiki told the Honolulu Star- Advertiser that money for established programs could be included in separate bills. That doesn’t sound like a sure thing: The appropriation should be within the state budget, in amounts similar to what Ige proposed.

A trial ohana zone certainly could be part of the mix. But let’s not abandon what works for what has not yet been worked out.