In this class action Mrs. Jefferies 1 challenges the validity of New York Social Services Law § 131(4) (McKinney’s Consol.Laws, c. 55, Supp.1971 2 and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 385.1, 385.7.3 Mrs. Jef*174feries claims that the application of these provisions allows mothers who are enrolled in “vocational” training programs to receive welfare benefits if they are otherwise eligible, and denies such benefits to mothers who, except that they are enrolled in an “academic” course of instruction, are similarly situated and that these provisions thus applied violate her rights to due process and equal protection of the law, infringe her first amendment rights by penalizing her for going to college, and conflict with the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (1970). Maxine Handel, Pearl Woods, and Alice Woods (hereinafter referred to as the Westchester plaintiffs), were permitted to intervene over the defendants’ objections.4

*175Mrs. Jefferies purports to represent the class of “parents of minor children who are otherwise eligible for public assistance [AFDC] but who are denied such assistance on the grounds that they are enrolled in ‘academic’ rather than ‘vocational’ education programs and [are] therefore deemed available for employment.” She is the mother of one child, and the father is absent. Before September, 1969 she was employed as a typist at a salary of $125 per week, and was not receiving any public assistance. She left her job to enter Queens Community College with the aim of becoming a teacher, aided by a full-tuition scholarship under the federally sponsored “College Discovery Program.” She received emergency assistance from the New York City Department of Social Services from September 11 to December 11, 1969, at which time benefits to both her and her child were terminated, pursuant to the provisions of state law challenged here, because she refused to accept employment. In a Decision After Fair Hearing, benefits for the child were reinstated, but the denial of benefits to Mrs. Jefferies was affirmed. The defendants urge that since she already has shown the ability to be self-supporting, she is not “otherwise eligible for welfare” and thus does not adequately represent the class she claims to represent. We disagree; since her child is “both needy and dependent,” Doe v. Swank, 332 F.Supp. 61, 63 (N.D.Ill.) (three-judge court), aff’d mem. sub nom. Weaver v. Doe, 404 U.S. 987, 92 S.Ct. 537, 30 L.Ed. 2d 539 (1971); Doe v. Shapiro, 302 F.Supp. 761, 764 (D.Conn. 1969) (three-judge court), appeal dismissed as untimely docketed, 396 U.S. 488, 90 S.Ct. 641, 24 L.Ed.2d 677 (1970), the household is within the purview of the AFDC program, and she has standing to raise the issue of whether she can be denied benefits for refusal to accept employment while attending college, while those attending vocational schools and who refuse employment continue to receive benefits.

The Westchester intervenors are in a different situation, and they perhaps present the issues in this case more clearly than does Mrs. Jefferies. They have from three to six minor children each and, since their husbands left the home, have continuously been receiving welfare benefits even when they have been employed. Thus, unlike Mrs. Jefferies, they have no history of being self-supporting in the regular economy. Each of them, with the approval of her caseworker, enrolled as a full-time student in a four-year college program, with a specific vocational objective. In June, 1971 each was advised that her welfare benefits would be terminated unless she enrolled in vocational training courses under the federal Work Incentive Program (WIN), 42 U.S.C. §§ 602(a) (19), 630 et seq. (1970).

By now it is well settled that legislative classifications in the welfare area are not subject to the rule requiring “strict scrutiny.” “If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ ” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1161, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970), quoting Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911). See also Jeffer*176son v. Hackney, U.S., 92 S.Ct. 1724, 32 L.Ed.2d 285 (1972). Applying this standard to the case at hand, we cannot find that the “academic-vocational” distinction embodied in New York’s welfare practices violates the equal protection clause. See Money v. Swank, 432 F.2d 1140 (7th Cir. 1970). Plaintiffs urge that the distinction is irrational in view of the purpose of the AFDC program to make families self-supporting, because college graduates are more employable than persons who have merely received vocational training. The statistics cited to us show that of approximately 25,000 welfare recipients receiving vocational training, only about 2,000 have become employed, and of those many continue to receive assistance, though this is principally because of the income exemption provisions of the Work Incentive Program, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (8) (A) (ii) (1970). However, this proves only that the WIN program in New York is not working very well, not that it would work any better if the state disregarded the distinction between academic and vocational training.

Furthermore, it appears from the deposition of defendant Wyman, and from the regulations, 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 385.1(4) (a recipient is not “employable” if enrolled in an approved “two-year college program with a specific vocational objective”) that the distinction in New York is really between, two-year and four-year programs. It is urged that even this classification operates irrationally, since some recipients will need pre-vocational training before they enter a two-year program, and thus will receive assistance for more than two years, while a recipient who has less than two years of a four-year program to complete is denied benefits. However, it is clear that the distinction is based upon the state’s desire to use its limited welfare funds to secure at least some useful training to a larger number of people, and not to assist persons whose education has gone beyond a certain point. We cannot say that such a policy is irrational. It is true that there is dictum in Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 291-292, 92 S.Ct. 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448 and n. 8 (1971) that might be thought to be contrary, but at least as applied to these facts it is entitled to little or no weight.

The plaintiffs’ contention that New York is infringing on their first amendment rights is plainly frivolous and need not detain us further.

Having found the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims to be without merit, we remand the case to Judge Tenney, who sought the three-judge court, for consideration of the pendent statutory claims. Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 402-403, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970). See also Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U.S. 275, 90 S.Ct. 1582, 26 L.Ed.2d 218 (1970); Boddie v. Wyman, 434 F.2d 1207, 1208 (2d Cir. 1970), aff’d mem., 402 U.S. 991, 91 S.Ct. 2168, 29 L.Ed.2d 157 (1971).

I

(concurring in part and dissenting in part):

Although I concur with the majority’s disposition of plaintiffs’ first amendment claims,1 I must dissent from their *177holding under the fourteenth amendment.

Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970), the test for determining whether a state welfare classification is violative of equal protection is the traditional “rational basis” test:

“In the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ ” (Citation omitted.) Id. at 485, 90 S.Ct. at 1161.

The Dandridge Court gave great weight to the fact that states have finite resources to devote to social welfare and that the federal Social Security Act gives them great latitude in dispensing them. As long as “a solid foundation for the regulation can be found” (Id. at 486, 90 S.Ct. at 1162.) in the state’s legitimate purpose in enacting the regulation, no constitutional violation will ensue.

Dandridge, therefore, sets forth four factors to be considered in determining whether a state welfare classification is violative of equal protection: (1) the state’s legitimate purpose in enacting the challenged regulation; (2) the means used to effect that purpose; (3) whether the means used are rationally related to the purpose sought to be achieved; and (4) whether the means used are such as to ensure the fiscal integrity of the state’s welfare program — i. e., whether the means used are economically sound.

In Dandridge, the purpose of the challenged regulation was to provide the greatest amount of aid to the largest number of needy people by the most economic method. The means used to effect that purpose was a maximum grant system whereby the state was able to provide grants to a larger number of family units by reducing the amount of the grants provided to very large family units. Clearly, the means were rationally related to the purpose of the regulation, and moreover, were such as to ensure the fiscal integrity of the state’s welfare program.

Applying the foregoing analysis to the instant case, the purpose of the federal AFDC-WIN program and accompanying state regulations which embody the academic-vocational distinction is to “help [AFDC recipients] to attain or retain capability for . . . maximum self-support and personal independence” (emphasis added) (42 U.S.C. § 601) and to restore “the families of . individuals [receiving AFDC] to independence and useful roles in their communities.” 42 U.S.C. § 630. The means adopted by the state to effect that purpose is to provide public assistance benefits to those enrolled in two-year college programs or vocational training courses, but not to those enrolled in four-year college programs.

The instant case differs from Dandridge, however, in that the means used by the state to effect the legitimate statutory purpose are not rationally related to the ends sought to be achieved, and moreover, are not such as to ensure the fiscal integrity of the state’s welfare program.

Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 92 S.Ct. 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448 (1971) supports this view, for although that case was decided on statutory grounds, the Court strongly questioned the rationality of the academic-vocational distinction:

“The majority [of the court below] justified the classification as designed *178to attain the twin goals of aiding needy children to become employable and self-sufficient, and of insuring fiscal integrity of the State’s welfare program. We doubt the rationality of the classification as a means of furthering the goal of aiding needy children to become employable and self-sufficient; we are not told what basis in practical experience supports the proposition that children with a vocational training are more readily employable than children with a college education.” Id. at 291, 92 S.Ct. at 508.2

The statistics cited to this Court with regard to the rationality of the academic-vocational distinction show that as of March 1971, 25,900 AFDC recipients had been referred to the WIN program since its inception in 1967. Of these 25,900, only 1,921 have successfully completed their training and are employed. Of these 1,921, a “predominant” number are still receiving welfare assistance. Depos. of Comm’r Wyman by Phillips, Ass’t Comm’r, at 23-25. It is apparent, therefore, that the academic-vocational distinction is not rationally related to the legitimate statutory purpose of enabling AFDC recipients to become financially independent and off the welfare roles.

The majority insists that these statistics show only that the WIN program is not working very well, but to me they demonstrate not only the irrationality of the academic-vocational distinction, but also unsound fiscal policy.

This latter point is particularly evident when one examines the way in which the academic-vocational distinction operates. Theoretically, the state sets forth two conditions an AFDC recipient must meet in order to qualify for assistance while engaged in training under either the WIN program or the state work rule: (1) her program must be of a maximum duration of two years, and (2) it must lead to a specific vocational objective. Although specifying a two-year maximum, the state actually provides benefits to AFDC recipients engaged in training for more than two years if, for instance, the recipient needs pre-vocational training to complete her basic literacy or to obtain her high school equivalency certificate. But New York has clearly demonstrated that it does not provide public assistance benefits to enable a recipient to matriculate at a four-year college, even if she has less than two years to complete for her degree, solely because she would be engaged in academic rather than vocational training. Depos. of Comm’r Wyman by Phillips, Ass’t Comm’r, at 37.

So while the state is willing to provide benefits for more than two years to a welfare recipient who, even after receiving vocational training, is not likely to get off the welfare rolls, it is unwilling to provide such assistance for four years or less to enable a recipient who has the requisite aptitude to obtain a degree that would ensure her becoming financially independent.3 I find this irrational.

It is just this latter situation which is presented most sharply by the Westchester intervenors. Each of the three Westchester intervenors is estranged from her husband; each has from three to six minor dependent children; each *179has a long history of receiving public assistance, even while employed; and two of the three have one year of college credit acquired some years ago. All three were encouraged by their respective caseworkers to enroll in four-year college programs precisely because vocational training would never generate the income necessary to enable them to become financially independent.

The majority holds that the academic-vocational distinction “is based upon the state’s desire to use its limited welfare funds to secure at least some useful training to a larger number of people.” But I question the “usefulness” of vocational training for those AFDC recipients, like the plaintiffs herein, for whom such training will not make it possible for them to become financially independent, and who, moreover, possess the intellectual capacity to pursue a course of study which would ensure such a result.

I am not suggesting that the state be required to provide public assistance benefits to all AFDC recipients who desire to enroll in four-year college programs. Whether any particular AFDC recipient would be accorded benefits while pursuing academic training should depend, as it has in the past,4 upon that recipient’s intellectual capabilities and on whether the degree she seeks is tied to a specific vocational objective to ensure her becoming self-supporting and off the welfare rolls. An across-the-board denial of public assistance to those AFDC recipients enrolled in four-year academic programs, while providing such assistance to those enrolled in vocational training programs, is not rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in providing training for welfare recipients to enable them to become financially independent, and does little to ensure the fiscal integrity of its welfare program.

On the basis of the foregoing analysis, I would find for the plaintiffs.