The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of the most controversial pieces of environmental legislation. Part of the controversy stems from doubts about its effectiveness in generating improvements in species viability. This paper uses ordered probit models to test whether the ESA has been successful in promoting species recovery. We find a negative correlation between listing and species recovery. Additionally, we find evidence of positive effects for species-specific spending and the achievement of recovery goals. The evidence also shows that recovery plan completion and the designation of critical habit are not correlated or negatively correlated with recovery.