This research combined data from three sources -- community surveys, census bureau, and police crime records -- to investigate whether structural factors associated with social disorganization theory (economic disadvantage) and social processes influenced citizens’ perceptions of incivilities (visible signs of social disorder and physical decay) in local communities outside the urban setting. Community surveys were administered to 1,125 citizens in 31 residential units. Hierarchical modeling techniques were applied to estimate citizen- and residential unit-level models simultaneously. The findings showed that structural and social conditions have independent effects on perceived incivility. Respondents living in economically disadvantaged geographic areas were significantly more likely to perceive their immediate surroundings in more negative terms (higher levels of incivilities). Respondents living in residential units characterized by higher levels of collective efficacy (consisting of both cohesion and control) reported significantly fewer incivility problems. The models were fairly robust tests in that crime and sociodemographic characteristics were included as independent variables to guard against spuriousness and survey response bias. Consistent with prior research, collective efficacy did not exhibit any meaningful mediating effects associated with the influence of structural constraints on mean levels of perceived incivility. Both aggregate characteristics influenced levels of incivility in nonmetropolitan communities. Different findings emerged when the two components of collective efficacy were assessed separately. Social cohesion was shown to influence incivilities and mediate the effects of economic disadvantage. When informal social control was included, the significant effect of economic disadvantage persisted and the informal social control coefficient failed to achieve statistical significance. The findings indicate that the social disorganization theory generalizes to less densely populated, nonmetropolitan communities. 4 tables, 2 appendices, 8 notes, 44 references