Crime analysis can offer information about crime patterns and other relevant data so that police agencies can prioritize and target policing activities. While the concept of using crime analysis to direct police activity is widely embraced, the practice of crime analysis turns out differently. While the police can produce volumes of crime data, it only becomes useful after it is properly analyzed. The current analysis draws on qualitative research conducted in two police forces to examine possible differences between crime analysis in theory and crime analysis in practice. Participant observations were made and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 analysts, 9 field intelligence officers, and 6 managers of intelligence units and superintendents responsible for leading the task process. Informal interviews were conducted with staff responsible for managing computer based intelligence systems and with officers who responded to the taskings. The analysis suggested that not only was there a poor understanding of analysis among police officers, there was also a poor understanding of policing among analysts. This chasm between the theory and practice of intelligence led policing are the result of two main difficulties: (1) the quality of analytical products and the contribution they can be expected to make to policing; and (2) the structural challenges of integrating crime analysis into existing working principles embedded in police culture. It is not impossible to integrate crime analysis into policing culture; training is needed for both officers and analysts if a productive working relationship is to be forged. References