Studies of advocacy by nonprofit human-service organizations generally fail to distinguish between two major types of advocacy—advocacy for social benefits versus organizational benefits. We show that different organizational factors explain the emphasis on each type of advocacy. We use an institutional logics perspective, with its emphasis on the moral frames organizations adopt, as our theoretical framework. We propose that two organizational mechanisms express these moral frames—selection of a practice frame and location decision—and shape the substance of advocacy. Analyzing a probability sample of these organizations, we find that a practice frame that places the clients’ problems on the environment rather than the individual is positively associated with advocacy for social benefits. Similarly, organizations that express their moral commitment to locate in high-poverty areas are more likely to advocate for social benefits. We conclude with some implications on the role of advocacy in a neoliberal regime.