Pearce, J. and Porzio, J.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, his due process rights were not violated by his placement in a non-secure facility. The Family Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders ( see, Family Ct Act § 141; Matter of Shariyf W., 245 A.D.2d 383). While the Family Court should consider the least restrictive intervention, it is not required to "actually try the lowest form of intervention, have it fail, and then try each succeeding level of intervention before ordering placement" ( Matter of Anthony M., 142 A.D.2d 731, 732; see also, Matter of Jason W., 207 A.D.2d 495, 496; Matter of Jamil W., 184 A.D.2d 513, 514). Here, upon the appellant's admission that he had violated the terms of his probation, the Family Court considered all of the available alternatives and reviewed evaluative reports of agencies supervising the appellant before determining that placement was required. Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in ordering placement, and its determination will not be disturbed.