Civic engagement has long been a core part of American higher education’s mission, yet many institutions continue to prioritize institutional agendas over authentic partnerships with communities. Despite decades of scholarship and the expansion of engagement initiatives, higher education often fails to fully integrate community voices or assess engagement practices in ways that advance equity and reciprocity. This dissertation investigates how urban anchor institutions can more effectively center community perspectives and address power imbalances in their engagement efforts.Using a comparative case study design, the research examines the engagement practices of Temple University and the University of Pennsylvania, two Philadelphia-based institutions with the Carnegie Elective Classification for Community Engagement. Data sources included institutional documents, engagement activity mapping, and fifty-two semi-structured interviews with faculty, staff, administrators, and community leaders. The study applied justice-centered relationships and stakeholder engagement frameworks to guide thematic analysis, triangulation, and a participatory interpretation session with community and university stakeholders. Findings reveal that while both institutions maintain formal structures and public commitments to engagement, community partners often experience interactions as extractive, unidirectional, or fragmented. Common themes include limited shared decision-making, restricted access to resources, and persistent mistrust stemming from historical inequities. Promising practices were identified but were unevenly implemented and under-resourced. This study contributes the Mutuality Assessment Checklist, a justice-centered tool co-developed with stakeholders to evaluate mutual benefit in community engagement. It concludes that urban higher education institutions must take intentional, practical steps to embed community voices across all stages of engagement to foster equitable, reciprocal, and sustainable partnerships.