Mediation, arbitration and a settlement conference are three different things
All three put a neutral person between the parties, and that is where the similarity stops. The difference that matters is who holds the power to decide, because it decides what you are walking into.
Mediation: a neutral who cannot decide anything
California defines mediation as a process in which a neutral person facilitates communication between the disputants to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement (Cal. Evid. Code section 1115(a)). Washington, which enacted the Uniform Mediation Act, defines it as a process in which a mediator facilitates communication and negotiation between parties to assist them in reaching a voluntary agreement (RCW 7.07.010(1)). Both definitions leave the mediator without power to rule, award or enter judgment. Washington goes further: under RCW 7.07.060(1) a mediator may not send a report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation or finding about the mediation to a court or agency that may rule on the dispute, and under 7.07.060(3) a communication made in violation of that rule may not be considered by the court.
Arbitration: a neutral who does decide
An arbitrator hears the dispute and issues an award. In federal court the difference is written into the statute: under 28 U.S.C. 654(a) a district court may send a civil action to arbitration only when the parties consent, and not at all where the action is based on an alleged violation of a right secured by the Constitution, where jurisdiction rests in whole or in part on 28 U.S.C. 1343, or where the relief sought is money damages greater than $150,000. Under 654(b) each district court must adopt procedures ensuring that consent is freely and knowingly obtained and that no party or attorney is prejudiced for declining. Mediation carries no such consent requirement, because mediation decides nothing.
The settlement conference: the court doing it itself
A settlement conference is court machinery rather than a private neutral. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5) lists facilitating settlement among the purposes for which a court may order attorneys and unrepresented parties to appear at a pretrial conference, and Rule 16(c)(2)(I) lets the court take up settling the case and using special procedures to assist in resolving the dispute when authorized by statute or local rule. Under Rule 16(c)(1) the court may require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by other means to consider possible settlement. Attendance is not optional: Rule 16(f)(1) authorizes sanctions where a party or its attorney fails to appear, is substantially unprepared, or does not participate in good faith, and Rule 16(f)(2) makes a reasonable-expenses award, attorney’s fees included, mandatory for noncompliance that was not substantially justified.
What all three share
None of them ends your claim by itself. A mediation that produces nothing leaves the case exactly where it was, an arbitration that the parties never consented to does not happen, and a settlement conference that breaks up sends the case back onto the trial calendar. The only instrument that closes an injury claim is a signed agreement and the release that follows it.