Ordered that the order of disposition and the order revoking probation are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We disagree with the appellant's contention that his placement should have been less restrictive. The Family Court has broad discretion in determining dispositions ( see Matter of Naiquan T., 265 AD2d 331; Matter of Tristan W., 258 AD2d 585; Family Ct Act § 141). "`[T]he least restrictive alternative test does not require the court to actually try the lowest form of intervention, have it fail, and then try each succeeding level of intervention before ordering . . . placement'" ( Matter of Tristan W., supra at 586, quoting Matter of Anthony M., 142 AD2d 731, 732; see Matter of Jamil W., 184 AD2d 513, 514). The Family Court's determination demonstrated that it carefully considered the less-restrictive alternatives to the appellant's placement, and properly balanced the needs of the juvenile and the need for the protection of the community ( see Family Ct Act § 352.2). Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion.