Ordered that the order of disposition is 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 entering dispositional orders (see, Family Ct Act § 141). 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 Jamil W., 184 A.D.2d 513, 514; Matter of Anthony M., 142 A.D.2d 731, 732; see also, Matter of Dane L., 155 A.D.2d 543).
The Family Court's decision with respect to the disposition 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, it cannot be said that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion. Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.