The aim of the research was to provide commentary on how the early architects of diversion conceptualized the idea, their ambitions and reservations, and how they have reacted to the evolution of diversion over the past 10 years. The research was intended to reaffirm the original goals and directions for diversion. The individuals who are known as the founding fathers of diversion represent a variety of backgrounds--prosecutor, attorney, administrator, professor. Of the six persons interviewed, three were practitioners who had a direct involvement in the operation of early diversion programs. Two major types of diversion processes emerged as a result of their efforts: prosecutor diversion and joint prosecutor-court diversion. Those interviewed agreed that the early pretrial intervention effort was a significant experiment. The early innovators had a clear idea of what they hoped diversion would accomplish and were motivated by concerns that the system of justice treat each individual equally and fairly. As the early architects suggest, diversion must demonstrate the flexibility and resilience of the early program to continue fulfilling the purposes for which it was developed. Footnotes are given.