The purpose of this research study was to explore the depth to which colleges and universities in the state of Georgia have institutionalized community engagement into their campus infrastructures. Community engagement was operationalized using the Furco, Weerts, Burton, and Kent (2009) model for institutionalizing community engagement in which there are five dimensions of engagement: Mission and Philosophy, Faculty Support and Involvement, Student Support and Involvement, Community Participation and Partnership, and Institutional Support. A survey design was used to collect data on trends in institutionalized community engagement at sample institutions (N = 48). A factor analysis statistical procedure indicated patterns of engagement in Georgia’s higher education institutions that generally mirrored the Furco et al. (2009) model of the five dimensions of community engagement. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test indicated no difference in the dimensions of community engagement based on institutional type (2-year/4-year) or control (public/private). However, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses results showed that institutional characteristics were a significant predictor of one dimension of community engagement, Institutional Support. Similarly, a logistic regression analysis further indicated that Faculty Support (B = .624, p ≤ .05) and Institutional Commitment (B = .267, p ≤ .10) dimensions were significant predictors of institutional receipt of the Carnegie Engaged Campus Classification, the President’s Higher Education Honor Roll in Community Service, or both designations. In addition, Institution Type (B = -2.487, p ≤ .10) had a moderately significant negative predictive power, indicating that the odds of receiving national recognition were decreased by 8% for 2-year institutions. The final logistic regression model accurately predicted 85.4% of the cases. Implications for higher education in the state of Georgia include the urgent need to establish a Campus Compact coalition to more comprehensively research community engagement in the state and identify best practices and support mechanisms for engagement across the state. Additionally, university leaders must be intentional in developing campus-community partnerships by implicitly and explicitly supporting the community work of faculty, students, and staff through the allocation of resources, rewards, and recognition. Lastly, institutional leaders should increase campus efforts to create campus environments that provide transformative teaching and learning experiences for students, faculty, and staff.