Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in placing the appellant with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months. The Family Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders. Moreover, it is well settled that "`[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 Jason W., 207 A.D.2d 495, 496, quoting Matter of Jamil W., 184 A.D.2d 513, 514; see also, Matter of Daryl S., 143 A.D.2d 835; Matter of Douglas R.S., 123 A.D.2d 868). The Family Court's decision demonstrated that it carefully considered less restrictive alternatives to placement and properly balanced the needs of the juvenile and the need for the protection of the community ( see, Family Ct Act § 352.2; Matter of Jason W., supra).
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.