随着“接近司法/正义”的第三波改革，面对日益增长复杂多样的矛盾纠纷，“案件分流和程序多元已成为本世纪以来司法改革的总体趋势”， 构建科学系统的多元化纠纷机制成为我国的国家发展目标和司法改革的重要战略部署。在不断深化多元化纠纷解决机制改革的过程中，人民法院提出探索建立调解前置程序，要求在诉前对适宜案件实行调解前置，整合利用社会力量化解纠纷，实现纠纷解决的分层递进。 从文本层面检视，调解前置程序属于法院附设调解制度，程序的启动以当事人自愿为原则，不具有强制性。是当事人向法院起诉后案件登记立案前，人民法院整合利用社会力量化解民事纠纷的解纷机制，具有解纷资源“量”的分配、解纷结果“质”的提高、解纷职能“新”的转变的价值功能。调解前置程序具有正当的法理基础，符合先行调解的法律规定，在理论上具备了实现制度预设功能的可能性，并在司法实践中形成了自上而下与自下而上相结合的“双向推进的改革范式”， 但理论基础的合法正当性以及改革范式的纷呈多样并不等同于改革试行成功的必然性，调解前置程序的改革试行能否实现制度预设预期目标，必需依据我国调解前置程序试行的实际效果来进行检验。 为了客观全面地反映调解前置程序试行的实际效果，本文采取司法检验的方法，通过调解导出率、调解成功率、调解周期、多元参与率、司法确认率五个量化指标对“试行实效”进行综合考察评估。结果表明，调解前置程序的改革试行具有一定的适宜性，但未达到最佳效果，突出表现为调解前置程序的适用率不高、化解纠纷的成功率偏低，且不同类型案件适用程序的效能差异较大。在改革试行的过程中，存在当事人自愿选择诉前调解的意愿不强，案件范围和调解周期的界定不够科学合理，调解形式单一，调解员积极性不高、知识水平和业务能力有限，诉调衔接机制不畅通等问题，调解前置程序蕴涵着极大的发展和改进空间。 鉴于在试行过程中发现的问题，调解前置程序的进一步改革应当以促进民事诉讼的社会化、实现纠纷解决的分层递进、打造 “共建共治共享”的社会治理格局为定位基点；对自愿原则作出一定的变通限制，采用“柔性强制”的启动方式；依据程序功能科学界定案件范围；建立适格的调解员队伍；采用类型化的调解模式、设置合理的调解周期；规范调解运行机制等方面来完善。 最后，调解前置程序并不是一项孤立的改革，必须建立健全系统的保障机制，科学规划、统筹推进，才能充分发挥调解前置程序的最大效用，保障当事人获得具体而符合实际的正义。

With the third wave of reform of " access to justice ", facing the increasing complex and diverse contradictions and disputes, "dispersion of cases and pluralism of procedures have become the general trend of judicial reform since the beginning of this century", constructing a scientific system of diversified dispute resolution mechanism has become China's national development goals and the important strategic deployment of judicial reform. In the process of deepening the reform of diversified dispute resolution mechanism, the people's court proposed to explore the establishment of pre-mediation procedure, require that appropriate cases should be pre-mediated before litigation, and the social forces should be integrated to resolve disputes in order to realize the hierarchical progression of dispute resolution. Viewed from the text level, the mediation preposition procedure belongs to the mediation system affiliated to courts in nature. It isn’t mandatory because its initiation and application are on the principle of voluntary parties. The pre-mediation procedure has a legitimate legal basis, conforms to the legal provisions of pre-mediation, and has the possibility of presupposing the implementation of function in theory. The trial implementation of the reform of the mediation preposition procedure in china is a "two-way paradigm of promoting reform" combining top-down reforms and bottom-up reforms. However, whether the pilot reform of the pre-mediation procedure can achieve the anticipated goal of the system should be tested according to the actual effect of the trial implementation of the pre-mediation procedure in China. In order to objectively and comprehensively reflect the actual effect of the trial implementation of the pre-mediation procedure, this article adopts the method of judicial examination, and comprehensively investigates and evaluates the "effectiveness of trial implementation" through five quantitative indicators: mediation derivation rate, mediation success rate, mediation cycle, subject diversity and judicial confirmation rate. The results show that the reform of the pre-mediation procedure has certain suitability, but fails to reach an optimum. It was profoundly manifested in the following ways: the application rate of the pre-mediation procedure is not high, the success rate of dispute resolution is low, and the effectiveness of the application procedures for different types of cases is quite different.And, in the process of empirical research, it is found that in the judicial practice of trial reform, the parties' willingness to choose pre-litigation mediation is not strong, the export rate of mediation cases is not high; the definition of the scope and cycle of mediation cases is not scientific and reasonable enough, the form of mediation is single, the enthusiasm and quality of mediators are not high, and the success rate of mediation is low; the connection mechanism between litigation and mediation isn’t smooth, these and other factors restrict the full play of the function value of the mediation preposition procedure. The mediation preposition procedure contains great space for development and improvement. In view of the problems found in the process of trial implementation, the further reform of the pre-mediation procedure should take the socialization of litigation as anchor, hierarchical progression of dispute resolution as setting path, and the "co-construction, co-governance and sharing" as policy guidance, adopt a certain mandatory pre-litigation mediation guidance mode on the premise of respecting the wishes of the parties, scientifically and reasonably define the scope of the case according to the function value of the mediation preposition procedure, the maturity of the case and the degree of judicial socialization, establish a professional mediation team, adopt the typelization of mediation mode, set up a reasonable mediation cycle, and improve the scientific and systematic mechanism of supplementary guarantee. Finally, the reform of the mediation preposition procedure isn’t an isolated reform. It cannot be fully utilized to ensure that the parties can access to the concrete and practical justice unless we focus on promoting the overall and systematic reform of the mediation preposition procedure and plan scientifically