The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to credit appellant's detention time toward his placement under the dispositional order ( see Family Ct Act § 353.3). At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, and in its dispositional order, the court fully articulated appropriate reasons for this determination. The court relied on probation and mental health services reports that recommended a highly structured residential setting in order to address appellant's mental health problems and his escalating criminal behavior and substance abuse, and it "properly determined that an award of predetention credit would result in a period of placement of insufficient duration to serve the best interests of the appellant or to adequately protect the community" ( Matter of Mack M., 175 AD2d 869, 869).