Comfort Keepers

Pros

• Comfort Keepers has been very good for the client and her husband.
• All of the caregivers who cared for him have been kind and professional.
• The client plans to continue using Comfort Keepers as long as they are needed.
• The client highly recommends Comfort Keepers.
• In the second week, the client enjoyed the service and was allotted 40 hours.

Cons

• The company is by far the worst caregiver company in town.
• The owner, Sandra, is incredibly rude, doesn't let others speak on the phone, makes clerical mistakes, and blames clients for issues when complaints are made.
• Denise, a caregiver, broke many things in the apartment and made the mother uncomfortable with insensitive and rude comments.
• Denise would complain about doing dishes, leave them dirty, and intimidate the mother from communicating with the family or the office about unprofessional behavior.
• Samantha, the scheduler, was demeaning and cold over the phone until the client became a private customer.
• When vouchers were used, caregivers were often new or not prepared and sometimes called out.
• The office staff were rude and did not tell the truth, and scheduling issues included no-shows or last-minute cancellations.

Review

Caregiver services in town seem to inspire a broad spectrum of experiences, and the feedback presents a striking contrast between moments of relief and instances of frustration. On one end of the spectrum, there are accounts of deeply unsatisfactory interactions that left clients feeling ignored, disrespected, or unsafe. On the other, there are stories of steadier, more confident support that clients and families feel they can rely on. Taken together, the reviews paint a picture of a firm with real strengths in some situations and notable weaknesses in others, depending largely on who is assigned to a case and how smoothly the office runs behind the scenes.

Several reviewers describe a troubling pattern of rude or unprofessional behavior from office staff and management. One person accuses the owner, Sandra, of being incredibly rude and domineering in phone conversations, making it hard to speak up or be heard. The same reviewer claims there are frequent clerical mistakes and that Sandra blames clients when complaints arise. The impression given is of a culture where clients feel shut down rather than supported, with communication blocked instead of clarified. The same narrative recurs around the scheduling process, with Samantha, the scheduler, described as demeaning and cold over the phone until a client became a private customer. The sense in these accounts is of a system that burdens clients with miscommunications, missed calls, and a sense that staff are more concerned with control than care.

The complaints extend to the behavior and performance of individual caregivers. Denise is named repeatedly as a problematic caregiver who broke items in the apartment and made many clients uncomfortable with insensitive or rude comments. There are specific grievances about doing dishes and leaving them dirty, coupled with an impression of intimidation - caregivers allegedly pressuring clients not to communicate issues to the office. In another thread of the same review, the frustration broadens to include the experience of being left to deal with a revolving door of caregivers, especially when clients are utilizing voucher-based payments. The reviewer notes that newer caregivers, through the voucher program, often lacked familiarity and competence, while the then-current caregiver (Denise) showed improvement only briefly before the behavior shifted again. The overall takeaway is that for some clients, the care environment felt unstable, with inconsistent personnel and a lack of reliable guidance from the office.

These negative experiences are not universal, but they clearly color the reputation of the company in one direction. The storyteller who describes "horrific" service and mentions several yelling matches with Sandra highlights a tense, adversarial dynamic that eclipses potential positive aspects of care. The call for compassion from the owner and staff remains unmet in this account, leading to a strong recommendation to avoid the firm. The emotional toll is palpable, with clients recounting distress and a sense that accountability was missing in critical moments of care and communication.

Amid these criticisms, other voices tell a very different story, one of steady, supportive care that makes practical differences in daily living. A separate reviewer reports using Comfort Keepers for several months with a spouse who requires ongoing assistance due to wheelchair use and oxygen. This account emphasizes kindness and professionalism among the caregivers who have shown up to help when the reviewer is out. The caregiver team is described as reliable, with staff who are attentive and respectful, and the reviewer expresses a clear intention to continue using the service and to recommend it. This perspective stands in contrast to the more chaotic experiences described elsewhere and illustrates that positive interactions with caregivers can and do occur, providing relief and measurable value to families in need.

Another recurring theme touches on the logistical and operational challenges that can undermine otherwise solid care. There are complaints about frequent staff turnover requiring new training, inconsistent attendance, and last-minute cancellations or no-shows that leave disabled clients relying on a fragile schedule. The reviewer emphasizes how difficult it is to manage care when a new person is being trained repeatedly, and when the office staff are perceived as unreliably communicating schedule changes or failures. The critique questions the company's claims about staff training and reliability, suggesting that promises of professionalism do not always translate into lived experiences for clients who depend on consistent support. In this narrative, the administration's honesty and transparency come under scrutiny, further complicating the relationship between clients and the organization.

There is a final, more nuanced note from one voice that adds a glimmer of optimism at an initial stage. In what appears to be a positive update from a caregiver or possibly a client stepping into a different role, the person states that "it's my second week and I enjoyed it - it's fun," and that they were allocated 40 hours in the second week. This small detail suggests that within the same organization, there can be moments of genuine satisfaction and a sense of engagement that contrasts with the more negative experiences reported elsewhere. It hints at variability not only in the staff and clients but also in the administrative environment, where shifts in personnel, training quality, and scheduling practices can create very different day-to-day realities for those involved.

Taken as a whole, the collection of reviews reveals a landscape defined by significant inconsistency. Some families find compassionate, capable care that improves daily living and provides reliable support for loved ones who rely on caregivers. Others encounter a wall of miscommunication, mistrust, and instability, where signs of disrespect or neglect undermine any potential benefits of the service. The common thread across the more challenging narratives is the sense that the office and some caregivers fail to maintain open, respectful communication, to honor schedules, and to uphold consistent standards of professionalism. The favorable accounts, meanwhile, underscore the impact that a dedicated, well-supported team can have when caretakers show up reliably, communicate clearly, and treat clients with the dignity and patience they deserve.

For anyone evaluating caregiver services in this area, the picture here suggests the importance of careful vendor selection, ongoing oversight, and clear expectations. It's essential to verify that a provider's stated training, scheduling practices, and communication channels align with the lived experiences of real clients. Asking for references, requesting a consistent caregiver match, and ensuring there is a straightforward, accountable way to report concerns can help families steer toward the positive experiences described in some reviews, while remaining vigilant for patterns of the issues raised by others. In the end, the most reliable care seems to come from a combination of competent, compassionate staff and a responsive, transparent office that prioritizes the client's well-being above administrative convenience.

Restaurants

• Carl's Jr. (0.2 miles)
• Fresno Yosemite International - J. Muir Grille (0.3 miles)
• KFC (0.4 miles)
• Taco Bell (0.5 miles)
• McDonald's (0.6 miles)
• Burger King (1.7 miles)
• Taco Bell (1.9 miles)

Transportation

• Baggage Claim (0.3 miles)
• Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Cell Phone Waiting Area (0.3 miles)
• Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FAT) (0.4 miles)

Pharmacies

• Rite Aid (1.8 miles)
• Walgreens (2.5 miles)
• Save Mart Supermarkets (2.6 miles)
• Rite Aid (2.6 miles)
• Medicine Shoppe (2.7 miles)
• Rite Aid (2.8 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (2.9 miles)

Physicians

• Fresno County Mental Health (2.3 miles)
• Dr Richard D. Jones, MD (2.4 miles)
• Robert Julian (2.5 miles)
• Fresno Shields Ghetto Walk In Clinic (3.2 miles)
• K&H Dental (3.5 miles)
• Internal Medicine, Fresno Community (3.5 miles)
• Internal Medicine Clinic (3.5 miles)

Parks

• Melody Park (2.4 miles)
• Green Park (4.3 miles)

Places of Worship

• Free Grace Church (2.5 miles)
• First Church Of God (3 miles)
• St Paul's United Methodist Church (3.3 miles)
• Butler Pentecostal Church Of God (3.5 miles)
• St Paul Newman Center (3.9 miles)

Hospitals

• VA Central California Health Care System (3 miles)
• Va Hospital (3 miles)
• Fresno Comm Hosp-Cardiology (3.6 miles)
• Neuroscience Institute at Community Regional Medical Center (3.7 miles)

Cafes

• Collect Coffee Bar (3.1 miles)
• Panera Bread (3.3 miles)
• Donut Hole (3.5 miles)
• Kuppa Joy Coffee House (4.1 miles)
• Kuppa Joy Coffee House (4.4 miles)

Theaters

• Maya Cinemas Fresno 16 (3.2 miles)
• Regal Manchester - Fresno (3.5 miles)