Community disaster resilience is increasingly guiding risk-reduction investments, but in many Southeast European settings, comparable subnational data remain scarce. This study assesses perceived community disaster resilience across Serbia by combining BRIC–DROP dimensions into a single index and analyzing differences across hazard types and sociodemographic factors. A cross-sectional household survey was conducted using multistage random sampling and the “next birthday” method for respondent selection. The final sample included 1200 adults from 22 local government units across four regions: Belgrade, Vojvodina, Šumadija & Western Serbia, and Southern & Eastern Serbia. Participants evaluated preventive measures and societal resilience for ten hazard types and considered five social dimensions: social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity/diversity, and social beliefs. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses (including Pearson correlations, t-tests, and ANOVA), and multiple linear regression identified key predictors of preventive behavior and perceived resilience. Composite scores highlighted spatial resilience differences. Overall perceptions were generally low, mostly falling below the midpoint of the scale. Furthermore, the highest ratings for implemented preventive measures were recorded for pandemics/epidemics, storms/hail, and floods, whereas the lowest were observed for environmental pollution and droughts. Perceived resilience was highest for snowstorms, storms/hail, and pandemics/epidemics, and lowest for environmental pollution and droughts. Also, respondents reported relatively strong family ties and favorable perceptions of communication and access to basic supplies, but weak institutional capacity, particularly in budget allocation, early warning and public notification, rapid decision-making, and evacuation and shelter readiness. Regression results were statistically significant but explained only a small portion of the variance. Age and public-sector employment positively predicted perceived resilience; fear, income, and, to a lesser extent, education were negatively associated. These findings highlight the structural and psychosocial factors that shape perceptions of resilience. The BRIC–DROP composite indicates generally low perceived preparedness and resilience, especially in risk communication, evacuation and shelter readiness, and financing—the key bottlenecks in strengthening local resilience. The results recommend combining institutional reform with targeted risk communication to reduce fear and build trust, especially focusing on hazard areas with the lowest confidence, such as environmental pollution and drought.